Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

British Rail

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase investment in British Rail.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): British Rail's investment expenditure this year will be the highest in real terms since 1962, and up to £4 billion is planned for the next three years—a 60 per cent. increase on the previous three years in real terms.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the Secretary of State for that encouraging reply. Is he aware, however, of the astonishing contrast between the attitudes to public investment of British Rail's present chairman and his predecessor, both of whom were Government appointees? Is Sir Bob Reid's candour a direct result of the change of Prime Minister? Does the Secretary of State agree with Sir Bob that British Rail needs annual investment—not subsidies—of between £1 billion and £2 billion for several years? I welcome what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about next year's expenditure, but will it be additional investment in real terms? Exactly how much of what Sir Bob is seeking is the Secretary of State prepared to provide?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already said that the amount—up to £4 billion—that is planned for the next three years is a 60 per cent. increase in real terms. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a difference of view between British Rail's present and previous chairmen, but there is certainly a difference between what the Labour party is saying today and what it did when in government, when rail investment was substantially less than it is now.

Mr. Jopling: Has my right hon. and learned Friend delivered an imperial rocket to the chairman of British Rail following the way in which BR managed the service during the week of hard weather? It is no use BR's having a massive investment programme, as it has, if it can neither design nor operate its equipment. Many days after the snow had stopped falling, BR was still running a skeleton service, there appeared to be no ticket collectors and hundreds of people must have gone through without paying, and at one stage there did not even seem to be any drivers to provide a minimal service.

Mr. Rifkind: I sympathise very much with what my right hon. Friend has said. British Rail is conducting its own inquiry into the lessons to be learnt from that experience. I am also expecting to hear in the next few weeks the results of a review that I commissioned in December to see whether any lessons could be learnt from the experience of other countries with climates similar to ours, which might help to prevent a repetition.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the bridges owned by British Rail and for which it is responsible are now in a very bad state of repair? Will he put the point to the chairman of British Rail and perhaps provide resources to do the bridges up?

Mr. Rifkind: I believe that British Rail has its own plans to improve and rehabilitate any bridges which may require such treatment. We shall draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of British Rail.

Mr. Adley: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, in past years the present Government and previous Governments have always exhorted British Rail to buy British. Following the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), may I ask whether the Government are putting any pressure on British Rail to buy British, or is it free to look to the manufacturing capacity of other countries in regard to rolling stock and locomotives? Some countries can and do build locomotives to withstand much worse weather conditions than ours.

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we want the travelling public to have the best available rolling stock for the price that is paid. It is for British Rail to judge how that can best be achieved when seeking to purchase new rolling stock.

Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that what Bob Reid mark 2 is asking for is additional cash amounting to about £1·3 billion per year for some years to make up the investment shortfall, bearing in mind that the rolling stock and signalling equipment is 12 years older than it was when the Conservative Government were elected? Does he accept that Sir Bob is demanding cash, not an increase in the external financing limit, which would have to be paid for through even higher fares and even more overcrowding on our shockingly run railway system?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's premise is incorrect. I have read the transcript of what Sir Bob Reid said. He acknowledged that the Government were providing facilities for £1·3 billion of investment this year, and expressed his desire for that to continue over the next few years. As I said earlier, the Government propose expenditure of £4 billion in the next three years—a figure very similar to the one mentioned by Sir Bob Reid.

Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that among his plans for major reinvestment in British Rail he will consider ensuring that the operating companies obtain greater productivity from their employees? They have changed their definition of "on time" so that they can pay additional sums to their senior management, but a train that arrives 10 minutes late does not strike me, or the rest of the world, as being on time. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the strange definitions that the operating companies have incorporated in order to pay themselves more money? Will he


also look at the subsidiary operating companies, which may operate genuine share schemes for their employees, and ensure that they benefit from the investment?

Mr. Rifkind: I note with interest what my hon. Friend says. We are anxious to ensure that British Rail recognises the need for quality control and introduces realistic and acceptable incentives for its staff in order to obtain an improvement in the quality of service. I shall look into my hon. Friend's point.

Roll-on Roll-off Ferries

Mr. Terry Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the implementation of a higher standard of residual stability to existing roll-on roll-off ferries as recommended in the report of the steering committee for the research programme recommended by the Sheen inquiry in July 1987.

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The United Kingdom has taken the lead in bringing about the consideration at the International Maritime Organisation of a higher standard of residual stability for existing roll-on roll-off ferries. In February 1991 the specialist sub-committee of the IMO on stability matters considered the United Kingdom's proposal and agreed that a higher standard of survivability should be applied to all existing roll-on roll-off passenger ships.

Mr. Davis: It is now four years since the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy, three and a half years since the Sheen inquiry recommended a programme of research into the problems with these vessels and more than a year since the steering committee for the research programme recommended that there should be an early international agreement to impose higher safety standards on existing roll-on roll-off ferries. When will something be done? The steering committee recommended that the Government should consider taking unilateral action if there was any delay at international level. When do the Government intend to do something, or are they waiting for another tragedy?

Mr. McLoughlin: A considerable amount has already been done. The Government have spent a huge amount of money on research. As I said in my original answer, we have already taken this to the International Maritime Organisation. We have always wanted to reach agreement through the IMO, as it is the most useful means of enforcing safety regulations, but we have made it clear that if we cannot obtain agreement at the IMO, we shall consider acting unilaterally in the case of all ships operating in and out of British ports.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister must answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) put to him. When do the Government intend to take action? How long shall we have to wait for the IMO to make up its mind? It is clearly seeking to delay matters even further, and it has not suffered the tragedy that the United Kingdom suffered. We need to take action now to ensure that there is no subsequent tragedy such as that which led to the Minister having to go to the IMO and argue Britain's case before it.

Mr. McLoughlin: It is universally accepted that the best way to act on safety matters is through the IMO. That is exactly what the Government are doing, but we have reserved the right, if necessary, to act unilaterally. That was applauded in two recent articles in Fairplay and Lloyd's List.

Blackwall Tunnel

Ms. Gordon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that whenever repair and maintenance work is required in Blackwall tunnel, one bore is kept open for two-way traffic of private vehicles and small vans.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Two-way traffic is operated when necessary in the southbound tunnel. This is not possible for the north bound tunnel, constructed in 1897, which is too small for high-sided vehicles in both directions.

Ms. Gordon: Is the Minister aware that daytime closures at the weekend cause massive traffic jams through the east end, particularly on Sundays? Last Sunday, not one policeman was to be seen, except those caught in the traffic jams, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked some of them whether they were from the traffic department they said, "Very definitely not, Sir." An irate constituent wrote to me telling me that he was caught for four hours trying to get home from Kent. [Interruption.] I remind the Minister that the old Blackwall tunnel—now the northbound bore —carried two-way traffic, including buses, until the late 1950s—[Interruption.]—and could do so again. That is perfectly feasible.

Mr. Freeman: Despite the background noise, I appreciate the problems that the temporary closure of the tunnel has caused in docklands. Work will be completed after next weekend. I hope that the problem will be alleviated by the boring of a third Blackwall tunnel under the Thames, for which design contracts will be let shortly.

Airline Competition

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the Government's policy concerning airline competition in the European Community with special reference to the access of new entrant carriers.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government will continue to press for a liberal single market in aviation in the European Community, in which competition can flourish and which possesses effective safeguards against behaviour that is anti-competitive or exploits the consumer.

Mr. Steen: I regret the collapse of Air Europe, for which the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority bear no responsibility, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he should ensure some protection from the bigger airlines, which are increasingly trying to destroy the smaller ones? Will he ensure that slots out of Heathrow and Gatwick are not used for unviable and uneconomic routes which make no money for the big airlines but which marginalise the small airlines and drive them out of business?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall comment on Air Europe in response to a private notice question at 3.30 pm.
The allocation of slots is a matter for the scheduling committees of airports. It is desirable that those slots are used in a way that will best benefit the travelling public, which is how we would wish the scheduling committees to carry out their responsibilities.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Secretary of State accept that any pressure on slots which made it impossible for regional airlines to use Heathrow would have a deleterious effect on the average member of the travelling public and would not be a helpful way of increasing the availability of slots at Heathrow?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is correct, but she forgets that last Monday we announced that existing restrictions preventing new domestic services from applying to use Heathrow have been removed. The constraint on new domestic and international services applying to the scheduling committee for slots has also been removed.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration is being given to improve further east-west road links to the channel tunnel.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): There are several major schemes in the national roads programme which will improve the main east-west routes to the channel tunnel and channel ports to meet expected demand into the next century.

Mr. Rathbone: I welcome that confirmation, but may I impress on the Minister, as a delegation of East Sussex Members of Parliament impressed on the Secretary of State the other day, the urgency of improving east-west road links to the channel tunnel before its opening? If that is not done, communications to Sussex and further west will be such that it will absolutely impossible to take advantage of the new link with the continent.

Mr. Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State reported on my hon. Friend's meeting with him. I cannot guarantee that all the schemes in the programme will be completed for the opening of the tunnel, but the main ones should be completed, particularly the one between Folkestone and Dover. There are about 10 schemes for the A259 in the programme, which I hope will be brought to fruition.

Mr. Aitken: At the risk of being called a southbound bore, may I press my hon. Friend for an answer an when the Government think that the channel tunnel will. open? Is he aware of the need for authoritative statement because of disturbing press reports about the likelihood of serious signalling and other technical equipment delays resulting in the tunnel being at least one year late? What is the true position?

Mr. Chope: I have nothing to add to what has been said: mid-1993 is the date for the opening.

Speed Reduction

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to reduce vehicle speeds on British roads.

Mr. Chope: Current initiatives include new road hump regulations,.20 mph speed limit zones and speed limiters for heavy goods vehicles.

Mr. Stern: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that comprehensive reply. That list shows the commitment of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department to the necessary reduction in speed limits. May I add to it the current proposals for increasing the likelihood of traffic light offenders being caught under the legislation? People who speed across traffic lights are a problem in major cities, such as Bristol, and anything that can be done to reduce it would be welcome.

Mr. Chope: I agree that there are a large number of traffic light offences which are a danger to road users. The new powers being taken in the Road Traffic Bill will enhance road safety significantly in that respect.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister consider the problem which arises when the third lane disappears because of motorway works but traffic hurtles along at 70 mph plus, makes no attempt to reduce speed and tries to force its way in at the last minute, causing tremendous danger to many other motorists?

Mr. Chope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Too many motorists drive recklessly and dangerously.

Bicycle Lights

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the use of lights on bicycles at night.

Mr. Chope: I continue to receive representations about bicycles being used without lights at night.

Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware of the increasing number of road accidents involving unlit bicycles? Will he consider making it a requirement that all new bicycles sold should have front and rear lamps fitted?

Mr. Chope: Some time ago we consulted on whether lights should be made an integral part of any bicycle before sale, but the overwhelming response was that the public did not wish that requirement to be introduced. Nevertheless, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the number of bicycles without lights on the road at night. Bicycles ridden at night are required to have proper lighting, but one of the difficulties is a lack of enforcement. In 1989, the last year for which I have figures, only 1,250 people were convicted of riding a bicycle without lights, although I am sure that it is within the experience of every hon. Member that many more people than that seem to ride bicycles without lights at night.

London Underground

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Underground to discuss future improvements to the system.

Mr. Freeman: The next regular meeting will occur within the next two weeks.

Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituents suffer badly from overcrowding on the


District line and look forward with eager anticipation to the construction of the Chelsea-Hackney underground line. What progress is being made in the plans for that line? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the plans will include the construction of a new station at Stamford Bridge which, as well as serving Chelsea football club, will serve the new Chelsea-Westminster hospital which will also need adequate transport facilities?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend refers to the Chelsea-Hackney line. He will realise that we are talking about a new underground line between Chelsea and Hackney which will permit people living as far south as Wimbledon as well as those who live in Essex to come into central London. The service provided will therefore be much greater than is apparent at first blush from the description of the new construction works. Nothing is firmly resolved at this point about the new station or the possibility of extending the line south of the river into Wandsworth. The leader of Wandsworth council is coming to the Department of Transport shortly to make representations on that subject.

Miss Hoey: Does the Minister agree that one of the most worrying aspects of travelling on the London underground, particularly for women, is fear at night? Will he take up with London Underground its intention to withdraw the extra staff who have been on the southern part of the Northern line and ensure that they are not withdrawn? I have seen the improvements at Stockwell in terms of computers and television, but nothing makes people feel safer than knowing that uniformed staff are present at night.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady is right that the presence of staff on the underground and on British Rail contributes to a feeling of security, but obviously both nationalised industries must live within their means. The proposed staff reductions on the underground, including the Northern line, relate mainly to ticketing staff, but I will look specifically at the southern part of the Northern line to see what consequences there will be for staff, particularly those who could be on the station platforms.

Sir William Shelton: My hon. Friend will be aware that a consultant last year recommended the continuation of the Northern line down to Streatham. Is he aware of the enormous importance that my constituents and I attach to that, and does he have any news of how it may be proceeding?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend has raised that matter assiduously with the Department of Transport, pointing out the benefits of extending the Northern line further southwards. London Underground is looking initially at the need for refurbishment and improvement on the existing Northern line. That is badly needed and it will follow what is being done to the Central line.
I will certainly convey my hon. Friend's comments about extending the line to London Underground, which I am sure will take his representations into account in its planning.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister accept that no promises of improvement for the future will offset the misery that Londoners feel when travelling on London Underground now? Does he accept that the projected loss of 950 jobs, with the consequent closure of some stations and booking

offices and reductions in service, will thoroughly undermine public confidence in the tube system and jeopardise future ridership?

Mr. Freeman: I am afraid that I do not follow the hon. Lady's line of argument. As I have said, reductions of up to 5 per cent. in the number of staff are related mainly to London Underground's greater efficiency and ability to issue and collect tickets automatically. I believe that the confidence of the travelling public in the underground is much more related to increases in capacity in the system, which derive from the building programme, and to the improvements that will be manifest on the Central line next September, when new rolling stock comes into service, and on the Circle line when new, clean, refurbished and reliable rolling stock comes into service next year.

Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. Friend seek immortality in south London by agreeing to the extension of the Chelsea-Hackney line south through Wandsworth—not only because many Wandsworth residents support Chelsea football club and want to go to its matches, but because there is not one inch of underground track between the Northern line and the Wimbledon branch of the District line?

Mr. Freeman: As I have already said, we have merely safeguarded the Chelsea-Hackney line; its construction will depend on satisfactory completion of the east-west crossrail. No final decision has yet been made on the Chelsea-Hackney line. I understand the arguments either for extending the line or for changing its line of route so that it will serve Wandsworth, which is relatively under-provided for in transport terms. My hon. Friend has diligently represented his constituents' views on this score, and I shall certainly take into account what he has said.

Shipping

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish his response to the report of the joint working party on British shipping entitled "British Shipping Challenges and Opportunities".

Mr. McLoughlin: The working party report represents a jointly agreed analysis of the state of British shipping and its recommendations were developed as much by the Government as by the industry. The question of a separate formal response by the Government does not therefore arise.

Mr. O'Hara: Is the Minister aware that in the past 15 years the number of ships owned and registered in the United Kingdom has fallen from 1,614 to 314, that in the same period the average age of British ships has increased from 6·5 to 13·7 years, and that the number of officers and ratings employed in our merchant fleet has declined from 81,000 to 20,000? The result has been that although 95 per cent. of our export and import trade is carried by sea, only one fifth is carried by British shipping. That not only has serious consequences for our balance of trade but represents the loss of an important resource which needs to be available in times of national emergency and defence. Does the Minister agree that Britannia no longer rules the waves and that it is high time the Government did something to reverse that savage decline?

Mr. McLoughlin: As I said, the joint working party has submitted its report and its recommendations are being followed by the Government. In the past the Government have recognised the need to provide assistance for the training of ratings and officers and that was achieved under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. There has been a large increase in the number of officers trained by the merchant fleet.

Ms. Walley: The Minister's comments are amazing. He does not seem to realise that his Government have presided over the biggest decline in shipping in any of the leading maritime nations. The Minister said that there is no need for a statement from the Government, but there must be a need for them to do something about this. The Government should do something to ensure that tax concessions are available. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he carries on believing that there is no need for such a statement we shall see the end of the red ensign and we shall have no British merchant shipping fleet?

Mr. McLoughlin: I could not disagree more with the hon. Lady. What the British merchant fleet would most dread would be a Labour Government.

Traffic Increases

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department is undertaking to evaluate the environmental effects of the road traffic increases forecast by "Roads for Prosperity".

Mr. Chope: We have set up a joint study with the Department of the Environment to see what contribution the planning system can make to tackling the problem of CO2, emissions.

Mr. Hughes: Have the Minister and his colleagues been working hard with the Department of the Environment to put pressure on the Treasury to ensure that gas-guzzling vehicles are more heavily taxed at the next Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly not."]—or do they accept that the electoral consideration of not offending the motoring and car lobby will, as always with the Tory Government, override environmental matters, particularly in the Department of Transport?

Mr. Chope: I cannot anticipate anything that might be in the Budget. It is worth pointing out, however, that even existing motor cars with 1300cc engines may vary by up to 40 per cent. on the miles per gallon achieved. It is open to the environmentally concerned motorist to purchase a motor car that is more fuel-efficient than another in the same range.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my hon. Friend, while helping in any way that he can to reduce emissions from motor cars, not fall for the blandishments of any lobby that is trying to persuade him to cut the road-building programme?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) shakes his head, but he may have forgotten that his colleagues, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor), have recently been lobbying me for more investment in the road-building programme.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that his bland statements simply add to the list of things about which we have heard in the past 10 years, including lean-burn engines and all the rest of it? Does he agree that appropriate fiscal measures would do a great deal to clean up the environment? In Germany, 98 per cent. of cars have catalytic convertors fitted. Would not it be in the interests of the nation and its environment to introduce fiscal measures to reward those who purchase cars with lean-burn engines and catalytic convertors?

Mr. Chope: The Government recognise that there may be a role for the taxation system in the process of ensuring the best improvements possible in our environment by trying to reduce CO2 emissions. However, it would not be right to suggest that that would be a total panacea.

Aviation

Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Airways to discuss the future of the British aviation industry.

Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of British Airways on 25 February. I meet Lord King on those occasions when there is a mutual interest in doing so and I should be happy to meet him in the near future.

Mr. Soames: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. When he next meets the chairman of British Airways will he confirm that it is the Government's intention to strengthen, not weaken, the hand of the biggest and most important carrier in the United Kingdom? Will he also explain to him why the Government have decided to substitute Virgin Atlantic on a route to Tokyo which was previously held by British Airways and which will have a materially adverse commercial effect on British Airway's prospects? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in all his airline policies, he seeks to bring stability to what is at the moment an extremely chaotic industry?

Mr. Rifkind: I have the greatest admiration for British Airways and the way in which Lord King, in particular, has chaired that company in the past few years.
As for our decision on flights to Japan, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, notwithstanding the announcement, British Airways and Virgin will be able to offer improved services on that route this summer compared with last year. Both companies should be able to increase their revenues. It was a difficult decision to reach, but it was necessary. I do not believe that it in any way suggests a lack of confidence in British Airways—quite the opposite. It is a superb, strong airline and I believe that it, as well as the British public, will benefit from the competition from Virgin Atlantic.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Secretary of State seen in some of today's newspapers reports that British Airways is proposing to withdraw some of its services in Scotland, some think on the highlands and islands routes? Is not that socially undesirable and will he make representations if that proves to be the case?

Mr. Rifkind: I saw the suggestion in one newspaper that British Airways was reviewing certain services, including some in Scotland. It is obviously for British Airways to


judge which services it wishes to provide. If there is a demand for services that are not provided by British Airways, other airlines may wish to take them over. That is a matter for the airline companies to determine.

Mr. Dicks: Which decisions made by my right hon. and learned Friend's Department or the Civil Aviation Authority over the past year or so have had the full support of British Airways?

Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the Department of Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority is primarily to serve the interest of the travelling public in the United Kingdom. I believe that, on the vast majority of occasions, that coincides with the interests of British airlines, but if I ever have to make a choice between the two, my primary obligation will be to the travelling public.

Aviation (Single Market)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress towards a single market in aviation.

Mr. Rifkind: The European Community Council of Ministers is now committed to a single market in aviation by the beginning of 1993. A second, interim package of measures was agreed last June. Discussion is in progress on safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour, and the Commission is required shortly to being forward proposals on issues that remain to be settled in detail.

Mr. Butler: Will the single market bring lower fares? If not, why not?

Mr. Rifkind: All the evidence that we have shows that when restrictions are removed, bringing in freer competition, it results in downward pressure on fares. I hope that that will be the experience when the single European market is achieved.

London Underground

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what service reductions have been implemented on the London underground during 1991; and what estimate he has of the effect of the reductions on road congestion in London.

Mr. Freeman: London Underground Ltd. has recently written to hon. Members about service changes that it wishes to implement later this year. I understand that the proposed reduced train services would be only some 1·5 per cent. below the the potential maximum and that any staff reductions are intended to increase efficiency by, for example, taking advantage of automatic ticket machines.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept that when there was a low fares policy on the London underground, in 1981 and 1983, there were reductions of 6 per cent. and 17 per cent. in car commuting? Does he acknowledge that there is a link between the two and that there is already a fall in ridership on the underground system which the service reductions that he noted will only exacerbate? Does he know that the chair of London Transport has acknowledged that there is expected to be a further reduction on ridership on buses? Where does he think that commuters will go if not into their cars? Will not this lead to further road congestion in London?

Mr. Freeman: When the Labour party was in office, it encouraged the GLC, when it was responsible for London Transport, to implement a low fares policy. It ran the London underground as though it were a department of social services and, as a result, neglected investment. Since 1985, there has been a significant increase in patronage on the London underground.

Ms. Ruddock: It is falling.

Mr. Freeman: It is not falling. There has been a significant increase in capital investment. The Labour party neglected London Transport and put us in the position that we are in today.

Air Fares

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the consequences of deregulation of air fares on the London to Amsterdam route.

Mr. McLoughlin: The relaxation of restrictions on fares was part of a broader liberalisation agreement between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. That allowed air carriers to use their commercial judgment in responding to customers' demands within a competitive environment. Air fares between London and Amsterdam are now lower in real terms than they were before the liberalisation agreement took effect.

Mr. Marshall: Does not that show how beneficial deregulation can be? Can we look forward to more deregulation in the transport sector, in respect of both air fares and buses in London? What has happened to the number of passengers on the London to Amsterdam route since deregulation?

Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend that liberalisation is essential—not least to give passengers more choice, but also to provide better opportunities for travel from regional airports. That is indeed the history of liberalisation.

Concessionary Fares

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward legislation for a national scheme of concessionary fares in outlying rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McLoughlin: I see no need to change the present arrangements, under which local authorities decide what concessionary travel schemes to operate in their areas in the light of local needs.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister will be aware that when pensioners and others look at the differences between local authorities they are often upset to find that concessionary fares are available in one area but not in another, and they ask why that should be so. Often, the reason dates back many years to the time when schemes were originally implemented. The answer that local authorities give now is that, with the poll tax system, they simply cannot afford to introduce a scheme as they would be financially penalised for doing so. That is difficult to explain. Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment with a view to finding a way round the problem?

Mr. McLoughlin: It may indeed be difficult to explain. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is asking the Government to explain something that local authorities should explain to their own constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Taunton Library

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has had any complaints over the adequacy of the public library facilities in Taunton.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I have had no complaints. However, I should point out to my hon. Friend that provision of public library facilities is the responsibility of the local authorities—in this case, Somerset county council.

Mr. Nicholson: I recognise that neither my right hon. Friend nor Somerset county council—with or without the community charge—has a magic pot of gold. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the splendid efforts of the staff of the Taunton library in assisting me, on occasions, and my constituents, the library is grossly undersized in relation to the size of the population that it serves? According to one estimate, it is only one quarter of the size that it should be to serve that expanding population, especially in respect of educational matters. As there is a proposal for a new building on the old Sainsbury's site in Taunton, will my right hon. Friend liaise with the local authority with a view to helping, if possible?

Mr. Renton: I note what my hon. Friend said. He has been closely involved in the efforts to persuade—if that is the right word—the county council to acquire new premises. I understand that, last week, the county council, in the light of other priorities, voted by a small majority against that course. However, if my hon. Friend sends me the full details I shall gladly look further into the matter. He will understand, of course, that I do not have any direct responsibility.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister understand that the vote against the excellent and extremely successful Taunton library's plan for development had nothing to do with the will of the local authority, but resulted from the fact that Somerset is threatened with poll tax capping? Has not he read the Library Association survey which shows that, because of the poll tax, 27 library authorities have had to make severe cuts this year and at least 37 propose to do so next year? Is not it a fact that the library closures, unfilled vacancies, cuts in book stocks and the shelving of excellent plans like that in Taunton are the results of the Government's obsession with the poll tax?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman may be rather more ignorant of the Taunton library expansion plans than he gives the impression he is. The plans call for a new building and a site of over 2,000 sq m has been examined. By contrast, the size of the present site is 800 sq m. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not really know the site or whether the expansion is justified. Furthermore, the community charge levels that have been set make provision for the maintenance of proper library services throughout the county. One area in which the provision of such services is in question is the county in which lies the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.

Skinner). I am considering very carefully whether the library cuts that have been suggested in that area go beyond what is necessary for community charge purposes.

Area Museum Councils

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement on the funding for the area museum councils.

Mr. Renton: The Museums and Galleries Commission has increased its overall allocation to the area museum councils in England by 15 per cent. in the coming year. I am pleased to see that in the Portsmouth area this will allow the area museum service for south-eastern England to continue providing advice and assistance to the eight museums run by the city council and to the four other member museums.

Mr. Martin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks, especially those which relate to Portsmouth and increased funding. Will he confirm that there will be a proper businesslike approach to the expenditure that is being made available? Will proper training and marketing skills be developed so that the money is used to improve museums, as it should?

Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The aim of the Museums and Galleries Commission, working closely with the area museum councils, is to ensure that the money available—as I said, the commission is increasing its grant to the museum council in the area which my hon. Friend represents in part by 15 per cent. in the year ahead—is properly spent, that there is good training and that everyone concerned should be able in due course to qualify for a standard certificate, for example, to show that they have proper professional qualifications for the museum. In that respect, the MGC and the area museum councils are working together closely and well.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that area museums have a special function in that they are often the venues for travelling exhibitions of paintings? In Wales, there is probably only one great exhibition of paintings permanently on view and that is the Impressionist collection at Cardiff. It is important to many children and students outside Cardiff that the museums have proper funding so that good exhibitions can be mounted in them. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the poll tax, means that area museums are in dire danger of being unable to mount such exhibitions in the future because the authorities always cut arts funding first?

Mr.Renton: The hon. Gentleman is correct in so far as spending on the arts is one of the discretionary areas of funding for local authorities. I hope that he will bring all his influence to bear to ensure that local authorities do not cut spending in this respect. It is not necessary for them to do so. The Welsh Arts Council has received a good increase from the Arts Council of Great Britain for the year ahead, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He should be lending his weight to ensure that local authorities do not bear down on discretionary spending on the arts.

Sir Peter Emery: When my right hon. Friend is considering these matters, will he consider especially some of the voluntary local museums? One in Honiton, containing a presentation of lace, is better than any other


in the country, yet it receives no financial benefit from the area museum councils. Some small museums do an immense amount of good for the locality and need to be encouraged as much as is humanly possible.

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention the lace museum in his constituency. As the area museum councils state in their recent. extremely good brochure entitled "Museums Working Together", they exist to help and support museums of all sorts from the smallest visual village museum to the largest city arts gallery. I see no reason, therefore, why the lace museum to which my hon. Friend referred should not receive help from the area museum council. My hon. Friend should suggest to the museum that it has another go.

Arts Spending

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the total amount of money spent on the arts by local authorities in England in each of the last 10 years.

Mr. Renton: Local authority expenditure on the performing arts is discretionary and there is therefore no central reporting requirement. The best available estimates of net spending are those prepared by the Policy Studies Institute which draw on annual surveys by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. With permission I shall circulate the figures in the Official Report.
The latest available indication of local authority support was provided in a recent Audit Commission report. It suggests that net spending in England and Wales in 1988–89 was about £160 million.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive answer. Does he accept that an inevitable and factual effect of the poll tax is that spending on the performing arts by local authorities has decreased as a proportion of their total budgets? That is inevitable because the spending is discretionary. Will the Minister assure the House that in the discussions that are taking place behind closed doors between Departments and at the Cabinet table on what the successor to the poll tax will be, local authorities will not be penalised for trying to keep museums and libraries open and will not suffer the draconian Government impositions that have been experienced by many boroughs such as the one which I represent? Libraries have been closed because of the local government taxation system that has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of which he is a member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is not rubbish; it is quite true.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating decisions that have not yet been taken. For example, the London Arts Board has not yet announced the amount of money that it will make to arts organisations in Southwark. As the hon. Gentleman will know, last year, Southwark arts organisations received a great deal of money from the LAB's predecessor organisation. It will announce its budget next week, so the hon. Gentleman should keep some of his indignation until he hears how much money it proposes to give.

Following is the information:



Net Revenue Expenditure


Year
£ million


England and Wales



1979–80
41·3


1980–81
50·5


1981–82
64·6


1982–83
87·2


England only



1983–84
94·0


1984–85
98·4


1985–86
98·8


1986–87
99·1


1987–88
134·7

Haymarket Theatre, Leicester

Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will pay an official visit to the Haymarket theatre in the city of Leicester to discuss arrangements for regional arts funding.

Mr. Renton: I have no plans to visit the Haymarket theatre in Leicester at present, but look forward to doing so in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Janner: I welcome the Minister's assurance. When he visits the Haymarket theatre, I hope that he will pay tribute to the theatre's work and the enormous efforts that are being made in Leicester to keep the arts going, through the Haymarket and other theatres, in such difficult times.

Mr. Renton: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I know that the theatre has played a great part in that. Furthermore, the second Leicester international dance festival will open at the Phoenix arts centre on Friday 15 March. It will be an important arts festival, in which I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take an active part.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Privatisation

Mr. Michael: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he has taken within his sphere of responsibility to safeguard the interests and career prospects of civil servants working in areas of responsibility affected by Her Majesty's Government's privatisation policies.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Within the Cabinet Office and Office of Arts and Libraries, no civil servants have been affected by privatisation policies.

Mr. Michael: Is the Minister aware that, when some of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's operations were recentralised in Cardiff early last year, civil servants were promised that there would be no compulsory redundancies. Is he aware that some of those individuals are now threatened with compulsory redundancy? Does he accept that such matters cannot be left to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, nor to the Department of Trade and Industry, as the present and previous Secretaries of State of that Department are obsessive supporters of privatisation? Will he reassure the dedicated public servants who now work in the Export Credits Guarantee Department in Cardiff that he will take a


personal interest in the matter and bring objectivity and humanity to the consideration of their individual futures, which cannot be trusted to come from those two Departments?

Mr. Renton: In his latter comment, the hon. Gentleman does an injustice to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. As the Minister of State told him in Committee last week, the civil service has arrangements whereby staff who are surplus to requirements in one Department are given priority when filling vacancies in other Departments. I have no doubt that the Export Credits Guarantee Department would make use of those arrangements if the occasion arose. I understand that the present estimate of the number of staff likely to be needed by the privatised company is about 600. It is possible that there might be 10 or 20 surplus people in Cardiff, depending on the timing of privatisation. That is not a significant problem and I hope that everything will be done to find good alternative jobs for those people.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the entrance examinations into the civil service and the calibre of personnel employed, it is likely that most of the privatised companies will wish to retain that excellent labour force? In the event of any of them having to go, does he agree that they are some of the most desirable employees in the labour market because of their great specialisations and their thorough vetting?

Mr. Renton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. His comments are very supportive for civil servants who, as a result of privatisation or relocation, might wish to transfer from the civil service. They will be highly qualified to find good jobs elsewhere.

Civil Service Unions

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans to meet representatives of the civil service unions to discuss morale within the service.

Mr. Renton: I had the pleasure in February of meeting some of the civil service union leaders informally.

Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware of the low morale among civil service staff at the British Library? Because of the Government's refusal to back the wonderful new investment in the St. Pancras site with adequate money, the 3,000 new reading room places which are planned will have to be reduced to 1,100. More crucially, the transfer to that site is underfunded to the tune of £8 million. Cannot the Minister understand that the opening of the new British Library should be a cause of great civic pride? Why cannot the Government back success? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at what his equivalent in France is doing and see his commitment to and support for the Bibliotheque Nationale? Our much more impressive and comprehensive British Library is liable to open less satisfactorily than it should because of the Government's meanness.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is very myopic. He is incapable of seeing the good parts in the curate's egg which, in the case of the British Library, are very good. Will he give credit for the fact that the Government are investing £450 million in the project, which will bring together, for the first time in many years, most of the

British Library components in London? It will provide two new specialised reading rooms on a single site. It will provide vastly improved facilities and better conservation. The shadow Minister for the Arts should be blowing a trumpet in praise of the fact that we are developing the exciting new British Library site at St. Pancras.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one thing that upsets morale more than anything else is dithering? As the Government made a firm promise some 18 months to two years ago to move the Ministry of Defence quality assurance unit from Woolwich to Teesside, but are now having second thoughts and vacillating, does my right hon. Friend understand that morale in the civil service unions would be much improved if the Government put into practice their promise to the people of Teesside?

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before at Question Time and I understand the seriousness that he attaches to it. As he knows, it is a matter for my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, but I shall ensure that the points which he makes so strongly are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister realise that an additional reason for the low morale in the library service to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred is that civil servants realise that cuts are occurring in libraries throughout the country because of the Government's detestable poll tax? The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he would get in touch with someone about the cuts in Derbyshire. Will he send someone with some money so that the authorities can operate the library service properly, instead of imposing poll tax capping, resulting in cuts in the library and music services?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has not read his brief well in terms of cuts in the library service in Derbyshire. Derbyshire county council has talked about closing 11 libraries. My libraries adviser has been to Derby. In his judgment, some of the cuts may not be proportionate to the cuts in expenditure by the local authority. He submitted a detailed report to me and I am considering what further action to take.

"Next Steps" Agencies

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement about progress with the "next steps" initiative.

Mr. Renton: This initiative continues to go well. Last month I addressed the first conference of agency chief executives. I was very heartened by what they were able to tell me about the progress being made in their agencies to secure better value for money and quality of service.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which confirmed that the "next steps" initiative would lead to greater efficiency and a more responsive service. Does he agree that, despite what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, there has been a massive improvement in morale in the agencies?

Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend. The exciting thing about the initiative is that it is only just starting. At


present, there are fewer than 100,000 civil servants in the executive agencies and we hope that the number will increase by the end of the year by close to 200,000. The eventual aim will be to have perhaps three quarters of civil servants in executive agencies. Their dedication will lead to better financial performance, to management by objective and to giving better service to the customer.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that when accounting officers appear before the Public Accounts Committee to deal with the "next steps" initiative and privatisation, they will bring with them the very civil servants who were responsible for administering the changes in the Department in those two respects? Will the actual officials involved come before the Committee?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman will have to be more specific about what he has in mind. Civil servants appearing before the Public Accounts Committee will always be willing and anxious to be as helpful as possible, but they cannot know in advance the precise range of questions that will be directed at them. In fairness, the Committee cannot have a huge quantity of civil servants appearing before it.

Disabled Employees

Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many registered disabled people are employed in each of the top seven grades of the civil service.

Mr. Renton: There are 21 registered disabled staff at grades 1 to 6, 30 at grade 7 level and many more who choose not to register. A more detailed breakdown of the top six grades is not available servicewide. A report on progress in the employment of people with disabilities in the civil service is being published this week in the magazine "Independent". I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that the number of people employed in the top grades of the civil service who are either registered or not registered as disabled is insufficient and sad? In view of his personal concern about such matters, what positive steps will he take to improve the prospects for disabled people to compete on a fair and equal basis, which is all that they ask?

Mr. Renton: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in many ways. This week, we are publishing the magazine "Independent"—I have a copy here, but it is an advance copy, so I cannot give it to him—which deals specifically with how to encourage more disabled people either to apply for jobs in the civil service or, once they have joined, how to make their needs better known so that they can be trained and properly promoted. I was talking just last week to those members of my staff who are especially concerned with disabled people. We are anxious to ensure that the civil service remains a lead employer in helping the disabled not only to take jobs but to be promoted as far as they possibly can be.

Air Europe

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the collapse of Air Europe.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Air Europe, which stopped flying last week, is now in the hands of an administrator. Its parent company, International Leisure Group Ltd., which also owns some tour operators, is also in administration.
It is disappointing that the companies have found themselves in this position due to financial problems. The Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for financial monitoring, has been in close touch with the companies throughout their difficulties, and I myself was made aware of them.
I understand that there has been some criticism of the CAA's handling of the problem, but I do not share it. It was for the authority to decide whether and when to take action. To have withdrawn licences or to make public statements on the financial affairs of the company while there was still a serious prospect of rescue would merely have precipitated the crisis and made it inevitable. The CAA would then have been exposed to much stronger criticism, without avoiding the inconvenience that has occurred to the travelling public. One also has to bear in mind the desirability of every opportunity being explored to try to safeguard the jobs of the almost 2,000 employees of Air Europe.
There is, of course, always some impact on customers in any industry when an event like this happens. The bonding scheme, which provides a fund for making arrangements for all charter passengers, has ensured that disruption has been kept to a minimum.
The lack of a similar bonding scheme for scheduled passengers has been commented on. Other airlines have been able to take up Air Europe's passengers, and this is to be welcomed. However, I believe the time has come to ask the CAA to consider whether some arrangement might sensibly be introduced for scheduled passengers. I have asked the CAA to report to me as soon as possible.

Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State accept that the collapse of Air Europe and its parent company, although due partly to the economic recession and to the Gulf crisis, has also been brought about by the Government's disastrous aviation policies—[Interruption.] Well, is a boom. It has been brought about especially by the Government's new air traffic distribution rules, which will cause further chaos and decline in Britain's aviation industry. Does the Secretary of State agree that the collapse of Air Europe is likely to be followed—[Interruption.]—Conservative Members should stop giggling and start listening—by similar financial difficulties in other independent British companies? Does he agree that the collapse will have a serious effect on services from Britain's regional airports? When did the Secretary of State and the CAA know about the problems of Air Europe, and what did either do before the collapse to try to prevent it?
What good is the Government's proclaimed liberalisa-tion of European routes if passengers on scheduled airlines are left with worthless tickets because of the bankruptcy of a particular company? Is it not a fact that the package tour

side of Air Europe's parent company was protected by a compensation bond worth £62 million administered by the Tour Operators Study Group, which is a competitor of ILG? Will the Secretary of State examine the structure of the bonding system, bearing in mind—[Interruption.] Listen. The Secretary of State did not mention this at all. He should bear in mind the fact that opinion within the travel industry is that the financial guarantee may have been withdrawn to prevent the entry into the British tour market of a German competitor, regardless of the disappointment, inconvenience and expense caused to British holidaymakers.

Mr. Rifkind: It is somewhat improbable that my statement on Tuesday on traffic distribution rules can have been relevant to the problems that the company faced. The company itself has not sought to make such a suggestion.
Both the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Transport were aware of the difficulties facing the company. I note that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has not criticised the CAA. He is right not to criticise it because, I am sure, he shares my belief that it is desirable to try, as was being done last week, to safeguard the jobs of the 2,000 employees of Air Europe and to avoide the collapse of the company. It is significant that that attempt was made, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not criticising the CAA for the way in which it has operated. I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's final point. I am not aware of any basis for his allegation.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the news of Air Europe's demise has been heard with considerable concern in my constituency? Is he aware that, in my view and that of many others, the CAA has behaved impeccably throughout the matter and has dealt with it with prudence and foresight? Nevertheless, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in expressing to the many people who work for Air Europe, who may now find themselves without jobs, our concern that everything possible will be done to get another airline flying in its place as soon as possible? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, Air Europe's demise is, sadly, due to a rather over-ambitious and eccentric management?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the difficulties faced by the employees of Air Europe. We have had that factor very much in mind. I hope, as will my hon. Friend, that the administrator who is now in charge of the affairs of the company will be successful in his efforts to find an alternative purchaser for those routes and for the facilities of Air Europe, so that as much as possible can be safeguarded and continued in the months to come.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many regular flight passengers were informed about the collapse only when they arrived at airports? Can he state when his Department heard about the collapse —the exact date—and does he now intend to do anything with other airlines and other Governments to try to handle the situation in the future?

Mr. Rifkind: We heard about the collapse only when the decision was taken by the company to invite the administrator to take over its affairs. That obviously


created inconvenience for the travelling public. However, that inconvenience would have been caused on whatever day the decision was announced. It is a regrettable inevitability whenever such a company ceases to operate.

Mr. Michael Colvin:: Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that, in spite of his eccentricity, Mr. Harry Goodman did as much as anyone to promote free and fair competition in civil aviation within Europe and was immensely popular with his passengers, for whom he provided a first-class and popular service? Does he accept that what he has said about the possible introduction of a bonding arrangement for scheduled ticket passengers will be extremely popular? Will he confirm that that will need legislation, and does he feel that the mechanism for airline monitoring by the CAA is adequate? The fact that Air Europe was skating on thin ice about 12 months ago was known to everyone, and I cannot believe that the CAA could not have contacted him at least, and given him greater warning of what was likely to occur.

Mr. Rifkind: I have no reason to disagree with what my hon. Friend says about Mr. Goodman and his achievements. As far as extending bonding to scheduled passengers is concerned, it is right to ask the CAA to consider that proposal. Such a system will have problems as well as advantages, because it could have some implications for fares and therefore it is appropriate for these matters to be properly investigated. I understand that extending bonding would require legislation. I have no reason to believe that the monitoring responsibilities of the CAA are being carried out in anything other than an effective fashion, but obviously we shall wish to study closely the events of the past week to decide whether there are any factors that should be drawn to our attention.

Mr. Alfred Morris: What assessment has been made of the effect of the collapse on Manchester airport? Was there any contact at any stage before the collapse became a fact between the CAA and airport management in Manchester? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there has been in that city very widespread concern about the effects of the collapse on our airport?

Mr. Rifkind: The implications for Manchester airport will obviously depend upon the extent to which the administrator may be successful in finding an alternative purchaser for Air Europe, or for at least part of its activities. I am not aware whether the CAA had any contact with the airport authorities, but no doubt that matter can be addressed to the authority.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, although I have enormous admiration for his stewardship of his Department, I find it difficult to accept his dismissal of any charges against the Civil Aviation Authority? Can he please tell the House when he was first made aware that the group running Air Europe had debts of £480 million which it could not service?

Mr. Rifkind: That is not a particular figure which has been drawn to my attention. I received a visit from the senior executives of Air Europe at the beginning of last

week, when they expressed optimism as to their prospects for rearranging their finances to enable the company to continue. I reminded them that it would be for the CAA, as the regulatory body, to decide whether they should be permitted to continue and that, if there were any question of the authority being dissatisfied with their being able to meet the normal statutory requirements, it would not be possible for them to continue. It appeared that there was a serious possibility of the company being rescued by the various attempts that were being made at the time.

Mr. David Marshall: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he is to consult the CAA on the possibility of introducing a bonding system for scheduled services. However, in view of the ever-increasing number of independent-minded families who book scheduled services for leisure purposes, rather than use charter flights and package tour holidays, does he agree that such a bonding system should be introduced now? There is a need for such a system now. Does he agree that having further consultations and delay is not the proper way to do it? Despite the problems in establishing such a system, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it should be introduced as soon as possible?

Mr. Rifkind: It is not a question of further consultation —as yet, there have been no consultations. Therefore, as there would be implications, for example for fares, it is right and proper that these implications should be identified. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that there are some anomalies in passengers on the same aircraft being divided between those who have the benefit of the bonding scheme because they come under chartered arrangements, and others who are experiencing the same difficulties and inconvenience but are not so covered. That is why I have asked the CAA to look into the whole question of whether bonding should be extended in the way suggested.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have another statement on aviation immediately after this one and, although it is not exactly the same subject, it has similarities. I shall take two more questions from each side and then we shall move to the next statement.

Mr. Conal Gregory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that probably the greatest victim of this collapse is the passenger, the person who has been saving up to make this major purchase, his second largest regular purchase after a motor car? Does he further agree that the industry has signally failed in that, for several years, it has been asked to appoint a tourism ombudsman but has not done so? Such a person could have intervened at an early stage. Ombudsmen already act in the public interest in disputes with building societies, banks, insurance companies and pension scheme promoters, but tourism is the one major consumer area without such a voice. Will my right hon. and learned Friend now intervene to appoint such an ombudsman?

Mr. Rifkind: I note my hon. Friend's latter suggestion. He will appreciate that I am not responsible for tourism, but I shall draw his suggestion to the appropriate quarter. I agree that those who had hoped to go on holiday in the last few days with this airline have suffered serious inconvenience. Fortunately, the bond for charter flights,


which will apply to most of those people, will al least ensure that they do not suffer any financial loss as a result of this incident.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is now about 17 years since charter passengers were given protection by the last Labour Government. Is it not time that Government policy was governed by the needs of the consumer and not by the mindless ideology of deregulation? Can the Secretary of State imagine German companies going under in a similar way? Is it not time that he gave an assurance to the people who are affected by this breakdown that in future no Tom or Dick—or Harry—will be allowed to run an airline in this way?

Mr. Rifkind: It is a sad fact in aviation at present that a number of airlines throughout the world are experiencing serious financial problems. That is in no way peculiar to the United Kingdom. Of course it is the responsibility of the CAA to ensure that those who provide air services are financially and in other ways suitable persons to carry that responsibility.

Sir Robert McCrindle: While I recognise the clear difficulties which must have confronted the CAA, which had a choice between doing nothing and pulling the plug prematurely on Air Europe, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, as the CAA was appointed by the House to be the watchdog of the consumer, it might have been wise to assume that not all of us necessarily read the financial pages of the newspapers? A low-key statement indicating that some talks on financial restructuring were proceeding might at least have placed in the hands of the consumer a decision whether to buy an Air Europe scheduled airline tacket. As a result, some people might have chosen not to fly, when all those people have effectively lost their money.

Mr. Rifkind: It is a matter of judgment as to what effect such a statement might have had. The more low-key the statement, the less likely the chances of it being reported in the press and, therefore, brought to the attention of the travelling public. There was a difficult decision to be made. On this occasion, I find it difficult to fault the CAA for the way in which it shouldered a difficult responsibility.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Did the Secretary of State consult the CAA immediately after being given the assurances at the beginning of the week, and if so, did the CAA assure him that the ariline was viable? If it did not, how is it that we have reached the situation in which, because the bond is being triggered, it is very unlikely that this airline can be sold as a viable company or that we will be able to retain the jobs and money of the people involved?

Mr. Rifkind: I received no assurances from the airline at the beginning of last week—only an indication of what it believed was likely to happen. It is for the authority and not the Department to make a judgment on these matters. The hon. Lady asked about the bonding arrangements. It was not only right and proper but necessary as I understand it for the bond to be called in; otherwise, those charter passengers for whom the bond is intended would not have been able to fly back to this country. They knew that the cost of doing so was covered by the bond.

Transatlantic Air Routes

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the United Kingdom-United States air negotiations.
I am pleased to announce to the House that the United Kingdom has this morning reached an agreement with the United States that offers major new opportunities to British airlines on transatlantic routes. The agreement allows two new United States airlines to take over Pan Am's and TWA's Heathrow routes, but with fewer rights than are currently available to Pan Am and TWA.
In addition, the United Kingdom will get an unprecedented wide range of new opportunities to compete in United States markets. United Kingdom airlines—especially British Airways—were closely involved in shaping the package throughout the negotiation, and I am grateful to them.
United Kingdom benefits include, first, the designation of a second British carrier to operate to the United States from Heathrow; secondly, a new facility for second or third United Kingdom airlines to fly on certain existing routes; thirdly, a completely new right to fly to the United States via continental Europe and to fly on from the United States to Mexico, the Caribbean, South America, and the Pacific; fourthly, a new ability to make marketing arrangements with United States airlines, known as code sharing, to all points from which United States carriers code share to the United Kingdom; and finally, opportunities for the first time for joint ventures between United Kingdom carriers and carriers from other European countries. Any growth of United States airlines' frequencies to and from Heathrow will be strictly limited for a three-year period.
Both sides agree that there will be further talks aimed at liberalisation of the British-American market, allowing airlines on both sides to compete on equal terms for transatlantic and internal United States traffic, without the limitations and complications of the present bilateral arrangements. Those talks will address complex questions such as cabotage and inward investment.
The agreement has not been easy to negotiate. The latest round continued throughout the weekend, and I place on record my appreciation of the skill and persistence of our negotiating team. The package that it thrashed out is a splendid one, which benefits United Kingdom carriers and offers a wide range of opportunties for airlines to compete in offering better services to the travelling public.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the Secretary of State clarify his statement that the two new United States airlines will have fewer rights than those currently available to Pam Am and TWA? What exactly does that mean? Is it not a fact that both new airlines, American Airlines and United Airlines, have a comprehensive internal network in the United States, unlike their bankrupt predecessors?
Who is to be the second designated British carrier to the United States from Heathrow? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman asking the House to believe that British Airways was
closely involved in shaping the package


when a second designation will obviously disadvantage that operator?
Which of the second and third United Kingdom airlines are to fly on certain existing routes? Will that not seriously divide British competition, to the detriment of our major national carrier?
Although the new rights to fly to the United States vis continental Europe will be useful in the long term, will that not involve agreement with other EEC countries? Will the right to fly on from the United States across the Pacific allow destinations to include Australia and New Zealand?
Is it not a fact that the code sharing to which the Secretary of State referred will depend on co-operation from rival United States airlines? What assurances has the Secretary of State received that such co-operation will be forthcoming?
As for cabotage and inward investment, will the Secretary of State confirm that much more discussion will be needed, and that, if any progress is to be made, the United States Congress will have to change its attitude considerably?
Finally, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the package, far from being
a splendid one, which benefits United Kingdom carriers",
represents a major victory for the United States, will divide and weaken the United Kingdom aviation effort, and is likely to make British Airways, for one, decide to reduce its comprehensive route network, in order better to marshal its financial resources for the transatlantic battle ahead?

Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. The limits on the new airlines that are to replace Pan Am and TWA are capped to the level of activity that those two airlines were planning for this summer. Thereafter, for the next three years, the two new airlines will be limited to a maximum growth equivalent to the services being provided by British airlines —whereas, under the existing Bermuda 2 agreement, their predecessors could have increased their operations to 150 per cent. of those of United Kingdom airlines.
The second designated British carrier is likely to be Virgin Atlantic Airways, because it is currently the only applicant.
Not only British Airways but other airlines were involved with our negotiating team, and were consulted during the long weeks of negotiations as to the kind of package that would, at the end of the day, be acceptable in terms of the interests of British airlines. I am grateful not only to British Airways but to the other airlines that have adopted the same position.
Of course the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that British Airways will see the matter purely in terms of the impact on the company itself; but I believe that, even when seen in that perspective, the agreement presents exciting new opportunities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am referring especially to the seventh freedom rights, which will allow British Airways in particular the opportunity, for the first time, to fly from continental locations across the Atlantic to the United States.
In its discussions with us, British Airways identified that as one of the most important objectives that it hoped the negotiation would achieve. I am delighted that such

opportunities have been agreed in the United Kingdom —almost for the first time anywhere in the world—and it is important that British Airways will be able to benefit.
The hon. Gentleman is also correct in saying that the discussions on cabotage and inward investment could lead to liberalisation only with the approval of the United States Congress, as well as that of the Administration. It is precisely for those reasons that we did not consider statements on intent by the United States Administration on those issues sufficient to form a crucial part of the existing package.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that no other country in the world treats its national flag carriers as badly as the Government treat British Airways? What are calculated to be the financial trading benefits to the United Kingdom and the United States? According to my estimation, and, I think, that of British Airways, we will lose and the Americans will gain.

Mr. Rifkind: That is simply not true. According to our estimate, British airlines will enjoy a gross benefit of some £200 million—more than the likely financial benefit to the United States from the substitution of United and American on the routes currently served by Pan Am and TWA.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In view of the probable benefits to British airlines in general, does the Secretary of State share my hope that the current staff reductions will be no more than temporary?

Mr. Rifkind: Of course we hope that that will be the case. I am aware that British Airways, along with many other airlines throughout the world, has been cutting down on the frequency of flights, and airlines—perhaps including British Airways—will no doubt make further announcements to that effect. That is a consequence of the general state of the aviation industry throughout the world, and it is therefore all the more important that new opportunities for growth for British Airways and other British airlines are provided.
We cannot ourselves ensure that the airlines take advantage of the commercial benefits available to them; our job as a Government is to provide the legal framework within which the opportunities become available for the first time. I have great confidence in, especially, British Airways under Lord King: in the past, it has shown itself very able to act as a competitive force when the need has arisen, and I believe that it now has the opportunity to show exactly what it is capable of achieving—even in circumstances that are difficult for all the world's airlines.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: May I place on record my appreciation of the skill and persistence with which my right hon. and learned Friend has pursued the opportunity available to him in achieving this deal? Is it not worth a large amount of money to British aviation interests? Has it any implications in regard to when an American airline might start a transatlantic service from Stansted?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As I said earlier, according to our best estimate, the United Kingdom will benefit by about £200 million. As for the use of Stansted, we believe that the agreement will result in a substantial increase in the


number of transatlantic flights provided by a number of carriers, both British and. American. Given the limited capacity of both Heathrow and Gatwick, it is probably only a matter of time before airlines will use the excellent opportunities provided by Stansted.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the Secretary of State persuade the House—perhaps he can—that we have not been had as suckers by the Americans in one respect? Has it been agreed that British aircraft on the other side of the Atlantic will be maintained and repaired at approximately the same prices as American aircraft? Has any agreement been reached on that crucial question?

Mr. Rifkind: The cost of the maintenance and repair of aircraft is the responsibility of the airline companies. Governments do not involve themselves in those negotiations. It is for the airline companies to negotiate with other companies, whether British or American, the precise contractual relationships.

Mr. Alan Amos: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a very good agreement for British passengers and customers. May I ask him to confirm that the agreement will help to bring about a competitive, multi-airline industry in Great Britain?

Mr. Rifkind: I believe that it will help in that direction. Certain of the agreements that we have extracted from the Americans allow for a second and, in some circumstances, a third British carrier to use routes that in the past were only used by one carrier. That will maximise the opportunities for the British travelling public to use the British airline of their choice, something which the House will wish to endorse.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the feeling in greater Manchester that, all too often, the Government forget about Manchester airport. How many additional flights to the United States will Manchester get out of this deal? What did he ask for?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give an exact answer. The airline companies will have to decide whether they wish to use these new opportunities. I repeat that the Government's responsibility is to liberalise the opportunities available to British airlines. It is then for the airlines to use those opportunities, according to their commercial judgment.

Mr. Robert Hayward: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the completed negotiations and echo his comments about the, negotiators, given that the American negotiators originally said that they wanted a straight swop, with no compensation whatsoever? May I ask him to take this opportunity to reiterate to the United States Government that we want an early decision on inward, investment for airlines?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend's latter remarks. He is correct to remind the House that the United States began by suggesting that the substitution of United Airlines and American Airlines for Pan Am and. TWA should be considered as merely a technical adjustment requiring no negotiation and no further changes. Due to the skill of our negotiators, we have received some extremely valuable concessions which have been identified by both British Airways and other British airlines as the ones that they wanted. I cannot emphasise too strongly

that the concessions that we have extracted from the United States were identified by British airlines as the price that needed to be paid if the two existing American airlines were to be replaced by two stronger American airlines.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that, when the agreement was negotiated, the American airlines were in deep economic trouble? Therefore, the Government and their negotiators were in a strong bargaining position. They could have screwed the Americans into the ground, but, for some reason that the Minister is not prepared to give to the House, they have finished up with an agreement that is nothing less than a carve-up for the Americans and a victory for Bush.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's premise, although not his conclusion, is indeed correct—that the Americans on this occasion were the demanders. It was therefore appropriate for the United States Secretary for Transport, who enjoys the name of Mr. Sam Skinner, to be persuaded of the need to make important concessions.[Interruption.] I am not aware whether there is a family relationship between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the American Secretary for Transport.

Mr. Skinner: Uncle Sam tipped me off.

Mr. Rifkind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to represent the interests of his British constituents rather than those of his American namesake.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Although the Secretary of State has worked very hard to obtain a net benefit for British airlines, is he aware of the opinion that British Airways—our major airline company with a glorious record of achievement and profitability—has to some degree been less advantageously dealt with? At a time when many airlines are disappearing, at great expense to banks, the economy and the travelling public, does he accept that it would be a mistake to deal with new airlines more favourably than with established, leading airlines?

Mr. Rifkind: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, as a result of the agreement, quite apart from the other concessions that we have extracted to which I referred in my statement, the two new United States airlines have fewer rights at Heathrow than their two predecessors.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Is the Minister aware that there will probably be no growth in airline frequencies in the next three years, but have we anticipated the considerable growth thereafter at Heathrow? What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "joint carriers" at Heathrow?

Mr. Rifkind: On the early part of the hon. Gentleman's question; the ability of airlines to use the new opportunities will partly depend on the availability of slots at Heathrow, which takes us back to our exchange last week on the' constraints caused by the virtual full use of Heathrow. Joint ventures provide new opportunities for British Airways to join other European airlines in challenging American providers of frequencies on transatlantic routes. In the past, such joint ventures have been impossible or very difficult, but they will be permitted under our bilateral agreements with the United States.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the seventh freedom facility for


British Airways will be warmly welcomed? I congratulate him on negotiating that. Will he comment on the new facilities for the second and third United Kingdom airlines to fly on existing routes? Are any of the airlines that participated in the discussions interested in using those routes?

Mr. Rifkind: It is desirable that frequencies that are not fully used by the sole carrier permitted to operate on them should be available to other British carriers. I believe that there is some interest in using the new opportunities, but the airline companies will have to make a statement to that effect.
The opportunities available under the seventh freedom facility are a major step in the right direction. They were identified by British Airways as one of its major objectives in the negotiations, but were resisted very strongly by the Americans up to the last stage of the negotiations. I am particularly pleased, therefore, that they now form part of the agreed package.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Secretary of State realise that the agreement is a poor deal in return for his decision to open Heathrow to all and sundry? Does he realise that he will never be in a stronger bargaining position to obtain cabotage within the United States? The agreement sells Britain short. Does that mean that he has given up all hope of achieving cabotage in the United States?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is clearly under a deep misapprehension. He seems to be unaware that British Airways and other British airlines thought that it would be inappropriate to seek progress on cabotage in the negotiations, because any realisation of our objectives on cabotage would justify the agreement not only of the United States Administration but of Congress, and that could not be guaranteed by the Administration. With the full agreement of British Airlines, we therefore concen-trated on concessions that the United States Administration were able to deliver, and therefore could be seen as bankable assurances in the way that I have described.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I welcome the statement, but will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State comment on its impact on regional and local airlines and say whether the dominance of British Airways since it took over British Caledonian will be increased or diminished?

Mr. Rifkind: My statement is on British-United States agreement on transatlantic routes. I believe that it will lead to a net increase in flights across the Atlantic in both directions, which will benefit not only the airlines but the travelling public. I look forward to the day when there are direct flights across the Atlantic from regional centres in the United Kingdom rather than them being overwhelmingly concentrated from airports in the south-east.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. and learned Friend envisage the routes that are operated by TWA and Pan Am from Heathrow to German destinations—Berlin and Frankfurt—being an

issue for negotiation between the Government and the United States Administration, or will the status quo persist?

Mr. Rifkind: I would have to check the precise details of the agreement hammered out a few hours ago. I think that part of the agreement is to put a cap on the exercise of the fifth freedom by American airlines at the level which is currently operated by Pan Am and TWA.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Following that question, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for clarification on the fifth freedom in the United States of America, because, de facto, the Americans will have it with this arrangement within the European Community? I welcome the arrangement overall, but there may be an imbalance there. In the light of his open skies policy at Heathrow, which was announced last week, does this give rights to American carriers to have any slots at Heathrow?

Mr. Rifkind: No, the agreement has no implications for slots. That is not a matter for the Government to determine: it is purely the responsibility of the scheduling committee at Heathrow. Therefore, American or other airlines that wish to use Heathrow may find that slots are available for the future. As I said a few moments ago, there are constraints on the extent to which these new American airlines can provide fifth freedom services arising from this arrangement.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. and learned Friend has estimated the gains to British airlines at about £200 million a year which no doubt is at the expense of our continental competitors. Can we have another look at the other side of the coin? Has he calculated what the net gains to American carriers are in this deal, which is broadly welcome?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. Although it is not possible to give an exact figure, either in our case or the American case, it is our view that the facilities available to United Airlines and American Airlines are unlikely to be worth as much as those available to British airlines. Indeed, the figure is likely to be £20 million to £30 million less in value. I must stress that those are the best judgments that can be obtained. Clearly they will depend on the extent to which the various airlines, British and American, use the new opportunities that are now available to them. That is not within our control.

Sir Robert McCrindle: Although I in no way underestimate the announcement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been able to make this afternoon, may I ask him whether he agrees that the principal aspiration of British Airways, as yet unfulfilled, might be said to be on the cabotage front, which is another way of saying that it would like to be able to pick up passengers in New York and fly them to Chicago or Los Angeles? Although I recognise that some reference is made in his statement to continuing negotiations on that extremely important matter, can he say whether the negotiations will start now or whether there will be an interval? Indeed, as Congress must put its imprimatur on this, how realistic is it to talk about this at all?

Mr. Rifkind: Both Secretary Skinner and I agreed that it would be desirable, in the event of a successful outcome of these negotiations, to begin talks on further


liberalisation as soon as possible. Cabotage was not included in these negotiations, with the agreement of British Airways and other British airlines, because it would not have been a power which the United States Administration alone could have delivered. Clearly, any further discussions will have to take place on the basis that if such a facility is to be permitted, it can be implemented only once the United States Congress has passed the necessary legislation. That is an inescapable part of the provision of cabotage opportunities, so it will be reflected in our attitude towards the negotiations.

Prescription Charges

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can be of assistance. Back-Bench Members certainly appreciate what you have often done during your time in the Chair to defend their rights. I genuinely mean that. At 3.30 pm, a written answer was given on prescription charges.
Since 1979, prescription charges have risen 17 times. There certainly should have been a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on such an important issue which certainly affects our constituents. Why is it that on such a crucial issue as prescription charges rising to £.3·40 per item a written answer is given but no statement? That will undoubtedly penalise people who are ill and who are not exempted. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will help us to get a statement from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is perfectly in order for a written question on these matters to be tabled—and answered. I understand that it is likely that there will be a debate on the matter anyway in due course.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Buying Agency Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Property Services Agency Supplies Trading Fund Order 1976 (Revocation) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Wood.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities 1989 shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Wood.]

ESTIMATES DAY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY] [1ST PART]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1990–91

CLASS V, II VOTE 3

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Transport Committee of Session 1990–91 on London Underground's Financial Deficit (House of Commons Paper No. 82).]

London Regional Transport

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £124,318,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Transport on support to nationalised transport industries and to ports; rebate of fuel duty to bus operators; and costs of drivers' testing and training.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. David Marshall: First, I thank the members of the liaison committee, particularly its chairman the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), for agreeing to the request from the Transport Select Committee to hold this debate today. I should also like to thank the members of the all-party Transport Select Committee for unanimously agreeing to accept my recommendation that we put in a submission to have this debate take place. The topicality of the subject has proved that it is in the public interest that the House should debate these estimates as they apply to London Regional Transport, and in particular to London Underground.
I shall be brief, as I am aware that this is a short debate and that many Members, especially those from London, wish to participate in it. I also intend to confine my remarks to London Underground and not to discuss the wider aspects of LRT.
In the past 18 months, the Transport Select Committee has held two one-off sessions interviewing the chief officers of London Underground. On each occasion, we decided subsequently to publish a report based on the evidence given to us as a result of our questioning of those chief officers.
On each occasion statements were made to us which astounded us. Eighteen months ago, we were told that overcrowding was so critical that London Underground had to increase the fares to put people off using the system in central London. Now we are told that because of its poor housekeeping, it will have to cut services, which in turn will further exacerbate overcrowding and even, perhaps, create more safety problems.
Only four months ago, we were told by the chairman of London Underground that the former finance director had many talents, but that controlling cash was not among them—what a condemnation that was of the process of selection and appointment.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with one who sat beside him on that Select Committee that we were also told—in view of an overspend of £93 million—that, apart from the financial side, it had been a fairly successful year? Does he agree that

if they were given the job of cleaning Oxford Circus station, the people who run the underground could mess that up too?

Mr. Marshall: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's final point, but I agree that the statement to which he refers must have been the mother of all midleading statements.
Although our report is short, it is all the better for that, and it highlights the serious financial situation facing London Underground. I can summarise the report by saying that in October 1990 there was an unforeseen deficit of £35 million, which rose to £93 million two months later and fell to £52 million net only after cuts worth £41 million were made.
The causes of the deficit are listed by London Underground as lower revenues from property and fares, higher spending on safety works, and the failure of accounting procedures.
The Select Committee concluded that the extra safety expenditure was justified, especially in the light of the Fennell recommendations. We believe, however, that the London Underground budget plan was greatly overoptimistic. Avoidable errors were definitely made in forecasting large revenue increases from property sales and fares when there were already signs of a slump, especially in the property and retail trades.
The accounting procedures need to be overhauled thoroughly, as it took far too long for London Underground to realise that its financial position was unsound. The Select Committee recommended that one the Department of Transport is satisfied as to the justification of the accelerated capital spending, it should allow London Underground to borrow forward on the 1991–92 external financing limit. We also recommended that the Department should undertake a detailed review of London Underground's capital programme in the three-year period covered by the next public expenditure White Paper with a view to making further increases in capital grant.
The Select Committee's main recommendations were that the internal review of the underground's financial systems should include improved financial accountability in the engineering projects directorate, improved monitoring by the finance directorate and closer co-operation between the two before the capital budget is agreed. We also recommended a clearer distinction between capital and revenue expenditure and accounting, and the proper authorisation and accounting of capital expenditure brought forward from future years. It should not have been necessary for the Committee to recommend such prudent measures, as they should have existed before the problems ever arose.
It is fair to say that London Underground now appears to be overhauling its procedures. The Department of Transport has financed the deficit for this year to the tune of £55 million.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman has just praised London Underground for overhauling its procedures, but can it justify having to sack 1,000 people because of its own managerial incompetence?

Mr. Marshall: I shall deal with that later, but those redundancies are one of the saddest recent developments in a long sad history of mismanagement at London Underground.
Can the Minister tell me whether the £55 million, which has been advanced to finance the current year's deficit, is an addition to this year's money? Or is it simply borrowed from next year's money, and if so, will the situation get even worse next year?

Mr. Michael Shersby: I had an Adjournment debate on 1 March on the subject of London Underground, when I raised that very point. My understanding is that the Treasury has the right to ask London Underground to offset that £55 million against its external financing limit next year.

Mr. Marshall: I am sorry that I missed the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate, but perhaps I had other business that evening. I am grateful to him for bringing it to my notice.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation. If, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) suggests, that £55 million must be clawed back from next year's money, it will make the situation even worse—the very point that the Select Committee has made.
I should like to record my appreciation of our Committee Clerk Mr. Doherty and of the specialist assistant Mr. Thompson for all that they do for the Committee. Without the back-up of such good staff, the Committee could not do its work and produce reports.
Our report concentrated on the reasons for the underground's financial deficit, but the story cannot end there. The consequences of the appalling financial mess inevitably lead to much greater problems and a serious deterioration in services. The ultimate responsibility for that must lie with the Government and it is at their doorstep that most of the blame must be laid. We have been asked to vote through the substantial supplementary estimate as the result of poor performances by London Regional Transport, London Underground and, most of all, by the Government.
This year's cash crisis is a symptom of more fundamental problems. The current expenditure plans show substantial increases in the external financing limit grant of £669 million, £769 million and £1,039 million in the next three years. Much of that grant, however, will go on additions to the system—for example, on the Jubilee line, crossrail and the docklands light railway.
The cash crisis has forced a stop on the planning work for the Northern line modernisation. In paragraph 35 of our previous public expenditure report, 'we stated our concern that the case for new tube lines should not obscure the need to improve the capacity and quality of existing systems. Suffice it to say that our call has been completely ignored. That has been borne out by the fact that most of the new money is for new projects and that very little will be spent on improving the existing system.

Mr. Dicks: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we give more money to this group of incompetents so that they can waste it as they have wasted all the money that they have had before?

Mr. Marshall: I shall suggest later that we should indeed give London Transport more money, but I should like to think that the additional money will be properly accounted for and used, and that the expenditure will be properly monitored. I hope that the management of London Underground have learnt their lesson and are on their way to putting their house in order.
The lift and escalator programme may be a casualty of the financial stringency. Lift and escalator availability hit an all-time low in the late 1980s due to the penny pinching of preceding years, regardless of what the Minister may say. In a large city like London, it is absurd that dead escalators should make life difficult for the elderly and disabled and cause dangerous congestion at stations and on platforms. Can the Minister say whether lifts and escalators will be a casualty of the latest round of penny pinching?

Mr. Tom Cox: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. A large part of the Northern line runs through my constituency. At Tooting Broadway, the lifts were out of action for months, and at Tooting Bec they have been out of action for a year. We were repeatedly told that they would be in service "next month", but they are still not in service. We are told that that is due to lack of funding. In reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), therefore, we should make the point that, although these people may not be fully conversant with how the underground system should be run, the problems on the underground system will never be rectified unless we have some money.

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend gives a splendid illustration of the end result of the lack of investment in the underground system. I hope that the Minister will give a guarantee that such necessary and vital facilities in running an underground system will not be held up because of lack of finance. On the contrary, they should be greatly speeded up by the disbursement of additional finance, as that would be in the public interest.
One of the great mysteries about London Underground is why, in the key financial years of 1986, 1987, and 1988, it underspent its grant by £123 million when so much needed to be done. The mess that it is in today did not happen overnight—it is the result of successive years of bad management. Oddly enough, there was a similar underspending by British Rail. It seems that, in the heyday of the previous Prime Minister, despite the Government-inflicted cuts in grants, both London Transport and British Rail management were so cowed that they exceeded the targets that the Government had set. Could that perhaps be described as machismo underspending?
We are now told that sweeping changes are to be made in the 1991–92 operating budget, and they are not changes for the better. For example, 1,000 jobs are to go, peak hour services are to be cut, the Central line service is to be reduced from 72 trains to 70, the Northern line service from 86 trains to 84, the Piccadilly line from 72 trains to 69 and the Circle line by one train between April and June. Other cuts will be dealt with in more detail by other hon. Members.

Mr Simon Hughes: I can give the hon. Gentleman an update. It has been announced today that 800 further job losses are to be made in this financial year.

Mr. Marshall: I am not grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, as it is even worse news than we had expected. One wonders where it will all end, and whether the underground will eventually come to a complete standstill.
I am sceptical about the proposed increase from 30 to 34 trains on the Victoria line. There should never have


been as few as 30 trains in the first place. In view of all the difficulties on that line—the problems with wheels and so on—one wonders whether the increase will come about.
The cuts will do nothing to increase safety or improve staff morale or to help to recruit and retain staff—inevitably staff will have to be taken on later—and they will not instil confidence in travellers, particularly women and the elderly or anybody who travels alone or late at night. Whether one is male or female, one no longer feels safe when one sees groups of people on the underground.
When I became a Member of this House in 1979, I did not have the slightest hesitation about travelling on the underground—even on the last train. That is no longer the case. In fact, I do not use the underground after 10 o'clock in the evening. I feel a bit apprehensive—perhaps due to advancing years. There ought to be sufficient staff to make trains and stations safe for any intending passenger at any time. The new plans will result in the worst way to run a railway. I cannot think of words to describe the way in which matters are developing.
We in the Labour party want substantially increased public investment in transport, but we want to see such investment well managed and properly monitored, with proper accountability. We do not want creative accounting or mismanagement. The buck must stop at the door of those who appoint senior officials in public companies—and such appointments are made by the Government of the day.
It is not just the Labour party that wants proper management and accountability. The Confederation of British Industry has provided us with an excellent brief. Even if, as I suspect, the CBI has its Marshalls mixed up, much of the brief is to be commended. It says:
If London is to maintain its position as the world's leading financial and commercial centre, the transport system must be world class. The CBI believes that traffic congestion in London can only be tackled by an integrated traffic system, in which road and rail complement each other.
On the need for better transport in London, the brief says:
An improved public transport system is essential because it transports 83 per cent. of commuters …
On the Underground, after an increase of 64 per cent. in passenger kilometres between 1982 and 1989, an increase of at least 20 per cent. was predicted by the end of the century. More investment is essential if London Transport is to meet the growth in demand.
That is the CBI's view. Does the Minister agree with it? If not, why not?
The Government must stop chasing the fantasy of significant private sector contributions to transport, and accept that there must be a public commitment to the transport system of London, which is still the largest city in Europe. The Government must face the facts, as the CBI has done, and accept that the underground desperately needs more investment—not subsidies—if many more crises are not to come home to roost in the years ahead.

Mr. Michael Shersby: A few days ago, I had an opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the level of service provided by the London underground. On that occasion, I made many of the points that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) has just made in his excellent speech. I received a courteous and informative

reply from my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, who made four main points. First, he reminded the House that we are dealing with an Edwardian railway.

Mr. John Marshall: Victorian.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend pointed out that we had to cope with the problems of our Edwardian and Victorian predecessors, and that that is a very expensive undertaking.
The Minister made what I thought was a most welcome admission—that the problems of the London underground today are partly the product of many decades of neglect. Those decades span the periods of office of both Labour and Conservative Governments. The Minister then referred to the lack of investment and to the policies that the Government were adopting to deal with that problem. He also stressed the importance of safety. He pointed out that one way of dealing with the problems facing the London underground was to increase capacity. He reminded us that the Jubilee line extension, the east-west crossrail and the safeguarding of the Chelsea-Hackney line had been given the go-ahead, and he made the point that the extension of the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail were being fully funded.
My hon. Friend the Minister explained also some of the improvements that are being made on the Central line, on which about £700 million is being invested. That will result in new rolling stock, new track, new ballast under the track and new signalling. As a result, an additional 5,000 passengers will be carried on the Central line during peak hours. All those developments are welcome.
My hon. Friend the Minister was also able to tell the House of a feature of the improvements that has exercised my mind and doubtless that of every other Member of this place who travels in central London. I refer to the improvement that is about to be made to the Circle line, with the introduction of new or refurbished rolling stock at the beginning of July.
I welcome unreservedly all the developments to which I have referred. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister assured me that the management of London Underground Ltd. is, in his opinion, of high calibre. He said that the chairman, Mr. Wilfred Newton, who has already run the Hong Kong mass transit system, had given an assurance to the Select Committee on Transport that the management of London Underground Ltd. will be able to cope with the problems facing it.

Mr. Dicks: As I did not have the opportunity to read the report of the Adjournment debate which my hon. Friend initiated, nor the Minister's reply, will my hon. Friend say whether the Minister said anything about the quality of the management of London Underground Ltd? Did he make any comment about the evidence given by Mr. Newton to the Select Committee on Transport? As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said a short while ago, there was a good financial director, but he could not handle money. Did my hon. Friend the Minister make any comment about London Underground Ltd. having a successful year save for a £93 million overdraft? Was it a successful year in London Underground Ltd.'s history? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) agree that, if the equipment, including the lines, of LUL are Victorian, the same must be said of the management?

Mr. Shersby: I can tell my hon. Friend that I advanced those arguments. He probably knows that I read the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee on Transport in preparing my speech for the Adjournment debate. In reply to my arguments—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) would have advanced them had he been present—my hon. Friend the Minister said that Mr. Wilfred Newton
had no hesitation in taking the tough decisions that are needed to set London Underground's financial house in order. He said as much to the Select Committee on Transport."—[Official Report, 1 March 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1288.]
We are considering the estimates and the future of the London underground. We are considering also London Regional Transport. It has been established beyond doubt that LRT's major problem is a lack of adequate funding. That has serious effects on the quality of the day-to-day service and on the deferment of longer-term capital investment. If the problem is to be tackled, we must consider how adequate funding can be made available. It seems that a number of sources are available. First, there could be funding from central Government. Secondly, there could be funding from London boroughs. Thirdly, there could be funding from joint business ventures, involving LRT and other commercial operators. For example, there could be schemes involving LRT and the London Docklands development corporation, or a combination of the other methods of funding that I have suggested.
Funding by means of joint business ventures might appear on the face of it to be highly attractive, but I suggest that it is likely to take place only in relatively limited circumstances in which the commercial operator can see a commercial reward over a relatively short time. I suggest also that it is inconceivable that such funding would be made available to meet daily operational costs or to meet the major capital maintenance costs of the existing system—for example, new track on the Victoria line and the replacement or reconstruction of many old bridges and viaducts. We are talking about extremely big numbers.
The second option of funding by the London boroughs is likely to be feasible only on a limited basis. That is where the boroughs see that they are contributing to the maintenance or the creation of a service that they would otherwise have to fund themselves—for example, local shopping bus routes. Given the position that the London borough councils face—they must restrain expenditure to keep their community charge at a sensible level—that does not seem to be a realistic option.
There is no shadow of a doubt, therefore, that much of the funding over the short to medium term must come from the Government, as is the case in nearly all other major European cities and some cities in the United States. As a Conservative Member, I am not afraid to say that. Indeed, I believe that it is necessary to say it and that there is a great deal of cross-party agreement on the matter. It is easy for the Opposition to score points from the Government of the day because of the poor services provided by London Regional Transport and London Underground Ltd. I suspect that, if people studied the records, they would find that I probably did so myself when I was in opposition.
It is now as incumbent on me as it is on Opposition Members to approach those problems without trying to score political points and to try to bring home to the

Government what is needed to deal with the problem. That may be wishful thinking, but, seeing the smiles on the faces of the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), I hope that, whatever the political point scoring in which they indulge, they will address the problems in this extra day's debate on issues affecting London.
Central Government funding is necessary because much of the capital investment required by the underground services is simply not commercially attractive. The many projects to build new lines may take 20 or 30 years to provide a return on the capital investment and that is not an attractive possibility for commercial investors. Equally, the cost of replacing worn-out bridges and track has no commercial return potential, since it only prevents the existing service from collapsing altogether.
There seems to have been some suggestion, perhaps emanating from the Treasury, that the costs of investment could be met by substantially increasing the real cost of fares paid by existing passengers, thereby avoiding the need for further Government funding. If that suggestion is serious, it is extraordinary. It implies that passengers who currently travel on unreliable and overcrowded services should pay more for the comfort of future travellers. Such a suggestion is commercially illogical.
In my Adjournment debate on 1 March—I am sorry that the hon. Members for Deptford and for Stoke-on-Trent, North missed it—I tried to illustrate the problem of fares. I said that, in real terms, fare levels in 1990 were broadly the same as those in 1980 because the Greater London council's "Fares Fair" policy created a dip in the mid-1980s and fares rose again to their present level but have not gone up in real terms.
We cannot ask passengers on the London underground to pay more for an extremely uncomfortable service. I liken it to an ailing department store or, perhaps more topically, to an airline with a reputation for worn-out premises or aeroplanes. Such a company could not suggest that its existing customers could pay even higher prices to fund better facilities in five year's time. If it did so, the customers would soon disappear and the company would go out of business. Instead, any such business would have to find commercial funding to improve its facilities. It would be necessary to convince its backers that its forecasts for future improvements in its business prospects justified the investment. The better facilities would ultimately be paid for by future customers, but only after the level of service had justified the price increase.
London Underground is already losing passenger revenue as passengers are driven away by the combined effect of increased fares and massive deterioration in the service. It does not take much imagination to realise what would happen if there were substantial increases in fares. Most passengers would probably cheerfully pay more once they had a modern, frequent, reliable and customer-oriented service. I suppose that that is a classic case of cost-benefit analysis.
The London underground is a critical part of London's infrastructure. Its present inability to provide a decent service has an impact on its customers and a knock-on effect on other parts of London's environment. Its rather unreliable and freqently unpleasant conditions ensure that a large number of individuals continue to commute to central London by car. That means that the Government and local authorities must continue to spend large amounts on road maintenance, improving parking


provision and parking restriction enforcement. The inadequate funding of London underground services ensures that further expenditure is necessary elsewhere. However, the nature of road expenditure means that it is not subjected to the same cost controls or to any form of balanced budget approach. It is taken for granted that building extra roads brings benefits elsewhere rather than being self-financing.
The unpleasant and frequently nightmarish journeys that many commuters now face are making it increasingly difficult for London firms to recruit the skilled staff that they need. In my constituency, people often prefer to work locally, perhaps at Heathrow airport or for local firms, rather than undergo the daily grind of a journey to London. The result is that many firms are now considering relocating elsewhere and a number have already done so. Those who stay face huge productivity losses as a result of staff arriving late. I wonder how many have arrived late in the past few months, leaving aside the extraordinary and worrying events of recent weeks.
An analysis of the problem leads to the conclusion that extra investment in London underground and British Rail services will lead to substantial savings and increased productivity elsewhere. That is precisely why most other European Governments are happy to provide major operating subsidies to their public transport networks. That brings us back to the CBI's attitude towards investment in the London underground and the need for our capital city to have a modern, efficient transport system if it is not to grind to a halt.
In my Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport told me that the autumn statement is the proper time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to announce the rate of subsidy for London Transport. If, in his autumn statement, he cannot substantially improve on this year's figure and provide a long-term strategy for the financing of London transport, the country and London will have serious problems.
London needs an immediate commitment to put its transport service into first-class shape. That must happen not only for the sake of its passengers, but to ensure the health of businesses in the capital. If those goals are to be achieved, London Underground clearly needs a substantial injection of large sums of money as well as the installation of a competent and dynamic management. The Chairman of the Transport Select Committee—the hon. Member for Shettleston—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) made that point. If Lord King of Wartnaby were chairman of London Underground Ltd. and had on his board people of the calibre of Sir Colin Marshall, Richard Branson, Michael Bishop and other leading distinguished and highly competent managers of our major airlines, I wonder whether they would be prepared to put up with the problems with which Wilfred Newton must now deal.
If that action is not taken, there will be a serious problem in the long term for London Underground Ltd. More and more United Kingdom businesses will tend to decentralise, and multinationals will think twice before locating in London. The financial, management and other attempts that have been made to sort out London Underground's problems have been patchy and somewhat half-hearted. They will not do. If the work to make

improvements starts now, it will not take effect on a major scale for five to 10 years. If it does not take place soon, London could be at a great disadvantage in terms of being Europe's business and financial capital.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell the House more than he could during the short time available to him last Friday. I hope that my contribution and those of other hon. Members will provide powerful ammunition for him in making his case to the Treasury.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the debate and for the fact that this subject has been selected from the estimates. I support the motion, which provides for the granting of about £124 million to Her Majesty out of the "balances kept at the bank" for charges which must be paid by the end of the year because we are going a bit short. It is vital that the money is paid. There is one matter on which there is no divide between the Government and the rest of us—London Regional Transport and the Department of Transport need the money.
We have already heard about the terrible state of London's transport. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who introduced the debate, and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) repeatedly came to the central point. I think that the hon. Member for Uxbridge made it six times. Without additional money from the Government, we cannot run a decent transport system in the capital. The hon. Member for Shettleston, who chaired the Transport Select Committee, made that point equally strongly, and also dealt with the state of the transport system. Various phrases were used to describe the bad state of affairs, the hon. Member for Shettleston referring to the long, sad history of mismanagement. We have heard that there is a need for new money not only for new work and new projects but for existing projects.
Who is politically responsible for the mess? Almost uniquely in the House, my colleagues and I can ask that question in a political way. When the Greater London council ran London Transport, the Government argued that the GLC ran it incompetently, so they decided to nationalise it, although they were against nationalisation. Those of us who were selected to sit on the Standing Committee considered whether the transport system would be better or worse run by the Government. Because the Conservative party had a majority, due to the distorted way in which it is given a majority in the House the Government took over London Transport and managed it.
As the hon. Member for Shettleston made clear, it appears that for three years London Underground underspent, even in terms of the restricted spending allowed by the Government. British Rail underspent in London. Public expenditure was curbed, but the relevant managers did not even spend the amounts allocated to them. It appears that, subsequently, incompetent financial management resulted in a large deficit this financial year.
The House has had the benefit of a clear report from the Transport Select Committee on London Underground's financial deficit, with a memorandum showing that, on 3 December 1990, there was a shortfall of £53 million—broken down into £27 million in lower property receipts, £18 million in lower fares income, £8 million in additional


operational costs and £40 million in the costs of additional safety works. Reductions in project and operating expenditure came to £41 million. The Select Committee concluded that London Underground's money had not been managed properly.
A thousand job cuts were recently announced. In addition, a leaked document from the passenger services director, Ian Athurton, announced that 798 posts were to go, comprising 458 station staff, 246 train crew and 94 maintenance men—so a further 800 staff face the axe.
Whose fault is it that London Underground underspent for three years and, having got itself into a mess, now has to take draconian measures which will be hopeless at building up a proper management system for the long term? Is it the fault of the Secretary of State for Transport or, because this is a nationalised industry, is it the fault of Mr. Wilfred Newton? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Uxbridge is gesturing in a way that suggests an answer, but I shall not embarrass him by attributing a possibly unfair answer.
Someone must take responsibility. London Underground was given a job to do and made a complete mess of it—I just managed to restrain myself then from saying something much stronger. Politically, someone must be called to account, because this is not good enough. I respect the Minister for Public Transport. He is committed to his job and to sorting out the problems that he inherited. Who takes the blame? Whoever takes it must go, or he will be acting against the principle of accountability.
Mr. John Hargreaves, LUL's finance director, has been replaced by my namesake—so I suppose that he must be a relatively good man—Mr. John Hughes, the man from the Pru. He has been brought in to sort out London Underground's finances, and I wish him well. His first job is to review 1,773 redundancies. A report in the Evening Standard appropriately states that he must
cope with the backlash of passengers and the workforce.
I wish Mr. Hughes well, because there will be a large backlash.
Having asked the political question, I wish to suggest the political answer, and here I agree with the hon. Members for Shettleston and for Uxbridge. Decisions must be made by the Government because they hold the purse strings and because the method of raising money is under their control. Not enough is invested in London Underground. All other major capital cities invest more than we do. The Government subsidy in London is about 30 per cent. and falling. Paris invests 50 per cent. and Rome 80 per cent.
We cannot expect to run a decent underground system without a large amount of Government investment As the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, the private sector is not willing to invest in sufficient amounts to flake that worth its while. That has been proven over the years and is not in dispute. To catch up on what should have been clone and to develop a system capable of dealing with future needs will require a lot of investment. Much of the current investment is putting right what should have been put right before—making safer what the King's Cross disaster tragically proved to be an unsafe system.
We need a co-ordinated plan, a strategy for London transport. Currently, a million commuters come in and out of London. It is predicted that there will be 1·2 million commuters by the year 2000. Bus use across London has

decreased by 30 per cent., yet I am advised that, in the rush hour, buses are filled only to the extent of between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.
There is congestion on many tube trains, as everyone who travels on them knows. There is also congestion on some bus routes. The fares are certainly not cheap—in many cases, they are expensive and off puttingly so. Our system discourages people from using public transport. The result is that they use private transport, which leads to even more congestion, with the result that business, jobs and employment are pushed out. The Confederation of British Industry made the same point as the hon. Member for Uxbridge. The London Chamber of Commerce also stated that people will not do the essential jobs in the city —jobs in the health service, in public transport, road cleaing and mending, and jobs in local authorities. There will be no one to run the capital city unless there is a properly co-ordinated transport system.
I observe in passing that, uniquely in London, local authorities do not make a contribution. There is not a levy —as there now is in other metropolitan areas—made by the transport authority on the local authorities. That was one of the consequences of London Regional Transport legislation. Ratepyayers—or poll tax payers or post-poll tax age payers or whatever they will be called next year—do not contribute. Should they? I do not suggest that there is an easy answer. Many people come to London as tourists, business people or commuters—and perhaps they should pay an equal amount. Local authorities do not get their transport supplementary grant to help them fund public transport. It is based almost entirely—if not entirely—on road use and functions. That is an inherited distortion of the Government's system, which time and again biases all transport planning in Britain in favour of roads, to great common disbenefit.
The first problem is lack of investment, the second is lack of co-ordination, and the third is the fact that there is no secure structure for investment. Unless we solve those problems, things will get worse. Public transport will become more congested and less well used.
I will illustrate the rest of what I want to say by taking some examples from my constituency, in the way Members do. One of the largest passenger interchanges in London is at Elephant and Castle. Many bus routes, a railway line and the Bakerloo and Northern line intersect there. Many people change there every day—to go to work, for recreational purposes, for shopping and for visiting. Civil servants work over it in the Department of Social Security. Yet it is felt by many to be one of the grimmest underground stations to be found in any public transport system in the world. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment came recently, and the Government have been helping to improve the area by giving a £500,000 million city grant. That was welcome and was well spent on improving the underpasses at the Elephant.
However, the layout of the booking hall is temporary and too small. The lifts are inadequate—there are only two and they are often broken. There are no escalators, but there would be space for them if they were integrated with those in the shopping centre. There are some completely unsavoury public conveniences, which are meant to serve a huge number of people but are often closed, ill lit or simply in such a foul state that people will not use them. The entrance to the Bakerloo line is closed. I went there on Saturday, to find it was closed for no good reason other than that it needs a bit of money to complete the work to


open it. Now, one has to go in through a hole in the wall into a half-finished place which looks like a war-time 1940s Polish film set, with light bulbs hanging on dangling wires and with uncovered brick work taken back to the bare bones. I spoke to a relief inspector on duty, whom I shall not embarrass by naming. He said that there were two vacancies for inspectors because it was so grim that people would not work there.
The Elephant is a major interchange; the local authority is trying to redevelop the area and the business community want to do something. There are schemes for hotel development and civil service offices. Yet the Elephant is the pits.
Improvements were started, but two weeks ago the money ran out and we were told that work would probably not start again for two years. Everything was left in a half-finished state. On Friday evening, after various approaches and meetings, after indications that this debate would be held and after it had been communicated to the management that I wished to go down to the Elephant, a rumour reached the work force that, some work would start again tonight. What a surprise! I welcome it and hope that it is rushed to completion, but a transport system cannot be run on a stop-go policy.
We cannot expect people to use public transport if they are presented at the beginning of their working day with such a grim place. It leaves them feeling as though they have gone through purgatory before they even get to their desks. That is no way to run public transport. It is an obstacle course in human, physical, spiritual and mental endurance. We are not in the third world. We are supposed to be a first-world country, and we should have a first-world public transport system.
Then recently we suddenly heard about what were called "a few modest changes." On 15 February, a letter from the head of public relations was sent to me and others, stating:
I am writing on behalf of London Underground's General Managers to advise you of some modest changes being planned for London Underground services from April.
The modest changes consist of closing booking offices early, and taking staff away from some stations. Whether it be Borough, London Bridge or Rotherhithe, they will be left with no personnel on duty at the times of day when people are most vulnerable. It is not as though there is a camera system to ensure that people are monitored as they go down the stairs or in the lift. Many people live in those areas, and for some elderly people there is no other access.
A councillor in Southwark told me that her mother who lives in Bexhill cannot come to visit her because there is no easy way for her to come if Borough station closes on Sundays or closes early. That was her easy access to get to her daughter's flat—by tube from London Bridge to Borough. She can no longer do that, and will not risk her life in a dark underground station in inhospitable surroundings, where there are no staff.
I understand that the London passenger consultative committee, which we included in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 as part of the statutory consultative process, objected on Friday and that everything has been put on hold. I hope that that means that the changes will

be reviewed. We cannot encourage people to use the underground if stations are personnel-free, with no support staff, and therefore even more insecure.
My last point is linked to London Regional Transport rather than to London Underground. A few weeks ago, people were told, among other things, of a change to the route of the No. 1 bus, which ran from Bromley through the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), through my constituency, over the bridge and into the west end. There were many complaints that the buses were always late or came in threes. The solution was a lot of little routes, but no through route. It would no longer be possible to come from Bromley without three changes.
That is fine in theory, and the service may be more frequent, but it is not fine in practice. A friend of mine who has four young children says that she now has to pay fares for each part of the journey and to wait for each bus with her children or her luggage. One cannot be certain that the next bus will be there to meet the connection, without interruption of the service. Eventually, one has to stop at the Aldwych, where the underground station is to be closed. There will not be an underground station even at the terminus of the route, as there would be if the bus continued to Trafalgar square where there are plenty of connections. If one then wants to go to Trafalgar square and one cannot walk, one has to pay the higher-rate, short-hop fare of about 70p just to go down the Strand.
What incentive is that for people to use the bus, for heaven's sake? People have already been put off using the tube—if they happen to be in a part of London in which they can get to a tube station. They may think of using the bus, but although they once had a journey all the way from outer London to the middle, they now have three separate journeys. If they do not have a travel card or pass, they will have higher fares, more inconvenience, and more risk of being in the cold and wet and of buses never coming. That is not the way to run a system.
People are consulted but, so far, consultation appears to have had no effect. The public and their representatives —this is not a party political point—are telling Government and management what they want. They have been saying the same for years. No one says that we should do away with London transport, or that we do not want the buses or the tube. People want more, efficient, better, clean and hospitable public transport. Please, whoever is the Prime Minister and whatever local government finance system we have, can we get it right? I do not know why we have got it wrong for so long.
Unless we get it right, we are condemning ourselves not only to unnecessary misery and inconvenience, and to messing up something that every other country appears to get right now, but to making our capital city less prosperous, successful and pleasant. We shall condemn millions of people to a life that there is no excuse for not helping to get right. I hope that at last, with an all-party consensus, we can get the message through that London transport needs attention from people who will put it right after decades of it going terribly wrong.

Mr. John Marshall: It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on the Front Bench, because, before he was promoted to his present position, he played a major role in


seeking to persuade London Regional Transport to improve the Northern line, which is important to him and to me.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked who was responsible for the present situation with London Regional Transport. He knows that a London Liberal Democrat can ask that question with relative impunity. The only thing for which London Liberal Democrats are responsible is the complete chaos that reigns in Tower Hamlets. If the experience in Tower Hamlets were multiplied across London, I should not like to say what would happen to London Regional Transport.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey watched television on Friday night. If he did, he will know that the present situation with London Regional Transport is due to the locust years when it was controlled by the Greater London council. There is a huge time lag between any decision to increase investment in transport and additional trains coming into service. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) was responsible, as Secretary of State for Transport, for ensuring a massive increase in investment in London Regional Transport. The hon. Gentleman also knows full well that none of the benefits of that investment will come through until many years after my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has left the House. The decision to increase investment and the ability to get planning permission for new lines and increased investment in rolling stock take many years to become effective.
We are suffering now from the locust years when the GLC was controlled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who was far more interested in subsidising the fares paid by American tourists than in increasing the level of investment in London Regional Transport.
Many of my constituents have the dubious pleasure of travelling every day by the Northern line. Some years ago, Keith Bright, the then chairman of London Regional Transport, at a meeting in the House, described the Northern line as "an abomination". He said that London Regional Transport, like any consumer company, would see that its reputation was determined by the worst part of the system. There is no doubt, for me and for many others, that the Northern line service is inadequate and unsatisfactory. Although the Northern line is now celebrating its centenary, the quality of service is more that of the Victorian era than a service that should prevail in the last decade of this century.
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet have frequently complained to Keith Bright, to Tony Ridley and to Dennis Tunnicliffe. I want to reiterate some of my complaints about the quality of service and about the attitude of management. There is no doubt that the attitude of the London Regional Transport management is sloppy and complacent. Following the disaster at King's Cross, London Regional Transport appointed one chap to be in charge of two stations. When one goes to the stations, one can see how concerned London Regional Transport is about the image that it produces to the public.
When I went to Hendon Central station this morning, I looked up at the clock. It told me that the time was 5.10 am. I could not decide whether I should have had another two and a half hours in bed or whether the clock was wrong. The clock, of course, was hopelessly wrong. It had stopped, and no one had bothered to start it again.
Later today, I was at Mansion House station wondering whether I would get here on time for Question Time. I looked at the clock, which said 9.58 am. The clock was still moving, because it then went on to 9.59 am. That shows a complete indifference to the needs of the travelling public. Even at 2.20 pm, the clock claimed that it was 9.59 am.

Mr. Shersby: European summer time.

Mr. Marshall: It was certainly wrong. It was either behind the time or ahead of the time, but it was not giving accurate guidance to the travelling public. This morning, as I went down the Northern line, I took note of the time at various stations. At the first station, the clock said 8 am. At the next station, the clock said 7.50 am. I was going backwards by some magic of London Regional Transport. The management's attitude should be less sloppy; they should be more determined to provide accurate information for the customer.

Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend gave the game away when he talked about the management. Is he aware that the management say today that the 800 job losses added to the 1,000 last week are a sign that they are on the ball and a sign of their efficiency? Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?

Mr. Marshall: When one looks at London Regional Transport, one is reminded of the old adage of Harry Truman: "The buck stops here." Unfortunately, with London Regional Transport, the buck does not stop at quite the right place. There is no doubt that some of the top management at London Regional Transport have not been as efficient as they should be. I do not include in that criticism Mr. Wilfred Newton, who has joined London Regional Transport only recently. He has come with a high reputation from elsewhere in the transport industry and from within private industry, where he worked efficiently at Turner and Newall.
It is not only the clocks on the stations that do not work: one thinks of the escalators and of the lifts. If one gets to Bank station and finds that all the lifts are working, one is likely to collapse with shock. It is a golden rule that at least one, if not two, of the lifts do not work. The same is true of the escalators. The escalator at Embankment station has not been working for months, and at London Bridge station, one escalator has been out of action for many months.
The dot matrix system is meant to inform commuters on the Northern line which train is coming next. At Brent Cross station the other morning, the indicator said that the first train which was due in two minutes would go to Bank station. It said that the following train was due in three minutes. No train appeared for another five minutes. I do not know what happened to those two trains. They must have been some of the invisible trains of the Northern line which somehow manage to get on to the dot matrix system, yet do not manage to arrive at the station on time.
Even when the trains arrive, one can almost guarantee that their destination will not be the destination that the dot matrix system said two minutes earlier that they would have. When I arrived at Hendon Central station this morning, the indicator said that the first train would go via Charing Cross. When it turned up, it was a Bank train. The public want decent. accurate information from London Regional Transport. If London Regional Transport


cannot operate a dot matrix system that gives accurate information, that says something about the attitude of mind within the organisation.

Mr. David Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has just outlined an awful catalogue of mismanagement. However, he earlier laid all the blame on what he described as the "locust years" of London Regional Transport being controlled by the GLC. Does he not realise that it is now seven years since the GLC controlled London Regional Transport? How does he account for his description of events? Who is really responsible? It certainly is not the GLC.

Mr. John Marshall: It is always a pleasure to give way to cousins, however distant, from north of the border. My argument about the GLC was that the level of capital expenditure that it determined has affected the number of new trains coming into service with London Transport in recent years. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) ignores the fact that, in a large organisation like London Transport, which employs many thousands of people, one cannot change an ethos overnight.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government have had seven years.

Mr. John Marshall: One cannot change the ethos of London Transport overnight.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, each year that the GLC controlled London Transport, from 1970 to 1984, its capital budget was set by the central Government of the day? Each leader of the GLC and each chair of finance had to go cap in hand to civil servants and Ministers to find out what capital expenditure they were allowed. Every time that we put up capital programmes, they were reduced in the initial stages by the Government of the day. That is an attack upon all Governments. If the GLC had had the freedom to run the system as we had wanted, these problems would not be with us now.

Mr. Marshall: I do not know how wise it was to give way to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I suspect that it was not. When he was in control of the GLC, after his Paris coup, he was more interested in subsidising fares than in increasing capital expenditure. One of the first things he did, after he had stabbed his leader in the back, was to push fares down so that many non-Londoners and people who did not need cheap fares benefited. Every American tourist get a bonus from the hon. Member for Brent, East. He would have done better by going to the Government of the day and saying that he wanted to spend extra money to improve the quality of service offered by London Transport, rather than to give cheap fares to those who often did not need them.
Those of us who travel regularly on London Transport, as I do, find that trains on the Northern line are often dirty, graffiti-ridden and somewhat infrequent. I have never understood why one of the first tasks for people who are sent to do community service cannot be to remove

much of the graffiti that they put on the trains and the streets of north London. The state of trains on all routes in London is a disgrace because of graffiti.
I am able to give a typical example of the sort of arrogance which has afflicted at least certain members of London Regional Transport's management. I recently went on a deputation with the right hon. Edmund Dell to complain about a proposal for closure in my constituency. I took with me a petition signed by about 5,000 people. When I was with Mr. Tunnicliffe, I was assured that my comments would be considered. At the time, a member of the staff on the Hampstead and Highgate Express was being briefed by a London Transport press officer, who told him that London Transport had already made up its mind and would ignore the petition that we had handed in. Subsequently, that was denied by the chairman of London Transport, but the fact that a press officer could say that to reputable journalists shows a degree of arrogance and unwillingness to listen to what elected Members of Parliament and prominent ex-Members of Parliament are saying.
I have frequently made proposals about the Northern line to London Transport and have received promises, but the Government have yet to receive proposals for the large-scale modernisation of the line. I welcome the fact that the money is being spent on a new station at the Angel, but the real bottlenecks are at Camden Town and Kennington, where much still has to be done. When London Transport altered its priorities and decided to improve the Central line before improving the Northern line, it got its order of priorities wrong.
Whatever our complaints about certain routes in London, every hon. Member must congratulate the Government on the large increase in expenditure that has been agreed in recent years. For Londoners, one of the real frustrations is the long delay which occurs after a decision has been taken to increase expenditure. It is strange that Labour Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Members for Brent, East and for Shettleston complain that not enough Government money has been given to London Transport. The Secretary of State then comes to the House and announces that more money is to be spent and that more new routes will be introduced. The private Bill procedure is used to provide for new routes.
What happens next? Do Labour Members of Parliament all stand up and sing "Hallelujah", and say that they will speed up the process? No, of course they do not. As we all know, Bill after Bill relating to London Transport has been held up by obstructive tactics, not from my colleagues on the Conservative Benches but from Opposition Members.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I think it is easier if someone else points this out—the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was unfair in his last observation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) spoke to a report which was agreed at a meeting when the majority of hon. Members present were Conservatives. As I understand it, that report from the Select Committee on Transport was agreed unanimously. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can suggest that that document was party political or that its strictures on London underground as regards the matters that we are debating today were not the subject of substantial cross-party agreement.

Mr. John Marshall: I did not say that it was only Labour Members of Parliament who wanted more money spent on London Transport. It is slightly ironic that Labour Members of Parliament come to the House, criticise the level of expenditure on London Transport but, when the private Bill procedure is used to facilitate new routes in London, certain Labour Members have been obstructive, with the result that the procedure takes longer than it might have done.
There is no doubt that the financial management of London Transport has not been of the highest. I cannot understand how any organisation can suddenly find that it is £50 million adrift. A private business would have discovered that something was wrong when it was £1 million or £2 million adrift. I am not surprised that the previous finance director of London Underground disappeared from the show. That underlines a much deeper malaise, and one wonders how deep the problems are.
Sometimes, when bus routes have been put out to tender, London Transport has won and sometimes the route has gone to another operator, but I welcome the fact that tendering has always resulted in substantial savings, which must surely be beneficial.
When my hon. Friend the Minister next introduces legislation to the House. we will give Londoners the benefits of deregulation of buses which have been enjoyed by the rest of the country. If we could deregulate London buses, there would be many more routes in the suburbs. Some people say that it would lead to more congestion. I do not agree for one minute that someone will run a route from Barnet to Bermondsey, but there would be many more local routes, which would benefit commuters in London and would lead to a better transport system for all the citizens of London.
The improvement of transport in London is a herculean task. It cannot be done overnight. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State on the improvements that they have made and that we know they will continue to make.

Mr. Tom Cox: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), because he has touched upon many interesting issues that I wish to refer to. The Northern line passes through a great deal of my constituency.
The statements that we have heard during the debate are obviously to be welcomed. Anyone who sees the debate on television or in the news programmes today, or reads about it in the press tomorrow and learns that there will be an improvement to rolling stock, will think that it is not before time. However, that thought will soon disappear, and people will start to say that they have heard it all before. Hon. Members from both sides of the House know from what constituents have told us that countless promises have been made about improvements to services, stations and manning levels. Sadly, that has never taken off. In the debate, we heard about welcome improvements that stemmed from the benefits of extra staff, but now we are told that the extra staff are to be removed.
For the vast majority of Londoners, the underground is the major means of transport, but they all despair at the conditions in which they are forced to travel. The Northern line goes through the Balham and Tooting area

in my constituency. It is an utter disgrace today, and it will be the same tomorrow and next month and possibly next year. One cannot even say that, although the station could be a bit cleaner, at least escalators and the lifts always work and that the trains are always punctual. One cannot say much in its favour. I am sure that hon. Members who have the Northern line and possibly other underground services passing through their constituencies are frequently asked when the services will be improved.
The Minister for Public Transport visited my constituency last summer and I wrote to him afterwards and thanked him, because his visit was well received. He met and spoke to the travelling public and travelled with them on the Northern line. Therefore, he cannot be in any doubt about how those travellers feel. If he made a return visit tomorrow, the same things would be said to him. No one has ever told me, and I am sure that no one told the Minister on his visit, that we have a good service. People cannot say that, because the service continues to worsen.
There is no comfort on the trains, and many stations are dirty and stay dirty—not just for a day or two or at weekends when there is a shortage of staff, but week after week. As other hon. Members have said, lifts or escalators are often out of service for months. When the Minister came to my constituency I asked him to get off at Balham station. To his credit he said, "Of course I will get off. That is why I am making this visit." He saw there a lift that had been out of service for about eight months and asked when it was proposed to bring it back into service. He was told that it would be in use again as soon as possible, but we are still waiting.
Eventually, such matters will be put right, but it is not long before there is another breakdown. That annoys people who want to use the service, and in the end they have to give up in despair.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If a ministerial visit cannot get the lifts working, perhaps a royal visit is required. If that does not work, we may as well all give up and go home.

Mr. Cox: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could have a chat to see whether the next visit can be upgraded.
Against that background of despair, fares keep going up, and that also annoys people. Now we hear that there are to be further cuts either in staff or in services. The Northern line is the key service in my area. Sadly, it has a record for mugging offences not only late at night but during the day. Some of them take place on trains and passengers are terrorised. We are often told that women will not travel on the underground because of the fear of such crime, but many able-bodied men say that they will not travel on the line because they know what happens there, and that it could happen to them.
To the credit of London transport—we must give credit where it is due—because of what was taking place, extra staff were employed. That resulted in a substantial reduction in crime on the Northern line from Clapham to Tooting Broadway, six stations in all. Confidence started to come back to the travelling public. Now we are told that the people who were employed to inspire that confidence are to be removed.
I understand from handouts that London Transport classifies that as an efficiency measure. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how that definition came about. The


travelling public when they become aware of that definition, as some of them are, would certainly not agree that reducing staff is an efficiency measure.
We are told that booking officies are to be closed at 8.45 in the evening. We can all imagine the scenario of a busy underground station with no staff on duty and the booking office closed. What happens if a crime occurs or a fire breaks out? Whom does one contact to report such matters? London Members with this branch of the underground in their constituencies are entitled to be told something about the thinking behind such decisions.
I have received a letter dated 26 February from a constituent about this matter:
The proposals outlined are a complete and utter outrage to passengers and their safety. I suppose we can now look forward to a dramatic increase in crime again on the southern end of the Northern line in return for higher fare increases and the hollow promises of improvements in the quality of the service.
I also had a letter from an organisation that is respected not only in my constituency but in the borough of Wandsworth, the Wandsworth society. It is a non-political organisation, to which people from all walks of life belong. They have spent a great deal of time looking at London Transport, certainly in my area, and they have voiced enormous opposition to what they understand will happen following the efficiency measures that I have mentioned.
We have heard about conditions in Europe. I am a member of the Council of Europe and often go to meetings in Paris. Many comparisons are made between the Metro and London underground, and it is said that the Metro is a much smaller system. That may well be, but the real issues for the travelling public are the regularity and frequency of trains, the cleanliness of the stations and the number of staff. In those respects, the Metro is well above that which is provided for Londoners. No wonder the people of Paris use their system. The travelling qualities are better, and the overall cost is lower. On the Metro, one can buy a ticket for the equivalent of 30p, which permits travel on any part of the system. The Metro's individual services may be small in terms of the distances that they serve, but, overall, it covers an enormous area of Paris. We have much to learn not only from the French but from the Italians and others. Sadly, we do not appear to do so.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) know that, one year ago, road development was threatened in Wandsworth and adjoining boroughs. In my many years in politics, I have never known such enormous protest meetings as those which took place in the borough over that issue. They were arranged by a number of organisations, and it was a case of standing room only. At one meeting that I attended, it was estimated that there were more than 1,000 people present.
The residents who attended those meetings were deeply concerned about not only the proposed road development but the provision of better public transport. That came over time and time again. They did not object to the prospect of paying more for public transport, provided that better services were made available.
There is a need for a co-ordinated transport/traffic policy for London. Part of my constituency is not served by underground or British Rail services, but only by buses. That deficiency could be met by a transfer system that

allowed one to purchase a bus ticket that could be used on the underground or on British Rail, or vice versa. That would benefit many travellers, and would encourage the public to use the capital's transport system more than they do.

Mr. Peter Fry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we encourage the public to use the capital's transport system at times when demand is already high, that will compound the problem? There are times —particularly peak periods—when so many people are using London Transport services that stations have to be closed and queues begin to form. That happens at Victoria, for example—to the great inconvenience of the public. Encouraging more people to travel could in itself exacerbate the problems that we are trying to overcome. There is certainly a case for encouraging more off-peak travel, but at other times, one would not want to do so.

Mr. Cox: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The solution is to provide a co-ordinated transport system. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned bus services. If they were made more reliable, the point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) could be met far better than it is today.
I never cease to wonder why we have failed over the years to develop the potential offered by the River Thames in providing transport for thousands of commuters, at least during the rush hour. In many European countries, river transport plays a vital role in their overall transport policy. Sadly, that is not the case in London. There is ample scope to develop that potential, and I hope that it will be examined as soon as possible.
Hon. Members have commented on the efficiency of London Regional Transport's management. I am reminded what occurs when Ministers—particularly members of the Cabinet—are sacked, when we are told how wonderful and knowledgeable they were, but a few months later, it is said that they followed all the wrong policies. That is happening now, in respect of the Government's economic policies. When a former Chancellor resigned, we were told that he had been wonderful in revitalising the country's economy, but now all its problems are blamed on his management of it.
The same happens in respect of LRT executives. I remember being told how marvellous and knowledgeable they were, but the first occasion that something went wrong, they left. I hope that whoever is managing London Regional Transport today will stay on long enough to fulfil their role in the way we want—and will have the authority to do so, in consultation with others, according to their abilities and knowledge of the system, for the benefit of the travelling public.
We have been made many promises. Let us hope that those made by London Regional Transport's present management will be kept. If that happens, I am sure that the travelling public will accept that improvements will take time to achieve—provided that they see a commitment to enhancing the services that they use day in, day out. Londoners have sought such improvements for years and years, but they have been let down. The real test of LRT's management will be whether the services for which it is responsible will improve. Whatever we may say,


and whatever may be said by Ministers or London Regional Transport, that is the yardstick by which the people of London will make their judgment.

Mr. Richard Tracey: If my reckoning is right, given the number of hon. Members in all parts of the House present who represent London constituencies, the score at the end of this welcome debate could be 10-nil against London Regional Transport. There is much cross-party criticism of the poor standard of facilities that it provides, and the Government must tackle the way in which LRT's management caters for public demand.
We can reassure ourselves that there is no call for the construction of more major roads in London, to cope with the growing volume of commuters. As the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned, a year or so ago he and my hon. Friend for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) joined the campaign led by Wandsworth council which argued a strong, united case to the Government that the assessment studies presented by various consultants urging a mass of new roads—all of them seeming to converge on Wandsworth bridge and the borough of Wandsworth in general—were not welcome.
To the Government's credit, they not only accepted that all-party case but a number of submissions made by other London boroughs. Road building is not the current buzz phrase, and I doubt whether it ever will be for the citizens of London.
Seventy-five per cent. of commuters travel by rail to their places of work, making a total of 2·5 million travellers a day—a 60 per cent. increase since 1982. It must be evident to London Regional Transport and to Network Southeast that that trend will not go away, and that the problems it brings will not diminish. The public cannot be expected to continue to put up with dirty stations, trains that do not run on time and are overcrowded—and may break down at inconvenient points—and the broken-down lifts and escalators mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which seem to remain stationary for far too long.
No one could claim that a shortage of resources is to blame. Investment of £3 billion is planned for the next three years, which will include the costs of the Jubilee line extension and the east-west crossrail. That is three times the amount that the Greater London council spent on London Regional Transport in its last year of existence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) strongly criticised the GLC, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will respond to that criticism. I believe that the GLC devoted far too much money to the revenue side and not enough to the capital side. That financial mismanagement had a knock-on effect, which we are now experiencing in the form of old rolling stock that is desperately in need of replacement—although some has now been replaced and there are plans to replace more.
We must be careful when we compare London with other capital cities. The hon. Member for Tooting pointed out that the Paris transport network is smaller than ours, but we invest more per head in our network than do the authorities in Paris, New York and Milan—to mention just three of the capitals with whose systems ours is often disadvantageously compared.
Investment in public transport, as opposed to road traffic, has resulted in an interesting development. In Paris, the average speed of road traffic is 9 mph; in New York, it is 7 mph; in Brussels—which, as the location of the European Commission, represents the centre of the universe for many people—it is only 6 mph. In London, it is 11 mph. Some things are improving here and, rather than comparing London so unfavourably with other cities whose transport facilities can, in fact, be criticised fairly radically, we should set our own example. I simply urge my hon. Friend the Minister to call on London Regional Transport to improve its management considerably.
There is much scope for improvement of the bus service. In 1989–90, £28 million was spent on improve-ments, and the number of bus miles increased by 3 per cent. during that period—although only about 14 per cent. of the total travelling public use the roads, which is considerably fewer than the number of rail travellers. As several hon. Members have pointed out, buses could benefit the public considerably. The routes, however, are often far too long: by the time a bus which started its journey in north London—which may be taking an hon. Member to his south London constituency—has sat around in traffic jams, it will be running seriously off schedule and often in a convoy. Two or three buses will arrive together at the bus stop, which is no use to travellers. LRT's management should give more thought to shortening routes and making it easier for buses to run on time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If routes are shortened, there must be connecting routes so that people do not have to wait at the point of connection. Moreover, the cost of the entire journey must not be more expensive, or those who do not have travel cards will be disadvantaged. Apart from that, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is logical.

Mr. Tracey: I entirely agree.
In parts of the capital, nearer the suburbs, smaller buses—Hoppas—are being used. They can move more flexibly through the traffic and can often negotiate roads down which a double-decker, or even a large single-decker, could not be driven. I think those buses must be used more.
Not enough strategic thought has been given to London's transport facilities—certainly not as much as I expected when I was a member of the Standing Commit tee considering the London Regional Transport Bill in 1984. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, there was a good deal of discussion on both sides of the Committee. It was said that the Department of Transport would keep a close eye on the new body's strategy and that hon. Members would be able to debate the way in which London's transport was being run. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether the Department is anywhere near establishing the strategic authority for London's overall transport network that we expected when we spent so many hours and weeks debating that Bill. A number of hon. Members who are in the Chamber served on the Committee. They know what was said.
Reference has been made to the deregulation of London's buses. The Minister and his Department of Transport colleagues can learn lessons from the deregulation of buses in other parts of the country. It is about time that London's travelling public benefited from those lessons.

6 pm

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Between 1981 and 1984, I was leader of the Greater London council and had some responsibility for the administration of London Transport. Seven years later, with London Transport under Government control, Conservative Members still get up and say, "If only the Labour GLC had done something different, we should not be in this mess today." I intend, therefore, to refer to my discussions with a number of Secretaries of State for Transport between 1981 and 1984.
As I said in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), a Labour Government—with the support of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who at that time was Opposition spokesperson on transport—passed the legislation which transferred control of London Transport to the Greater London council. Capital expenditure control was still with local government. However, the Greater London council's capital expenditure, which included London Transport's capital expenditure, had to be agreed by the Government of the day. Otherwise, Greater London council money resolutions would not have been carried by the House. First, the Government, then the House of Commons exercised complete control over the GLC budget, not just when I was the leader of the GLC but throughout all previous GLC administrations.
When Sir Horace Cutler went to the then Labour Government with the proposal to extend the Jubilee line to docklands, his proposal was vetoed by that Government —no doubt on Treasury advice. Labour, then in opposition on the GLC, supported Sir Horace Cutler's condemnation of the Labour Government for blocking proposals which were supported by the whole council and by people throughout London. Had the Government of the day not blocked the Jubilee line to docklands, it would by now have been operating for many years.
One of the first acts of the new GLC Labour administration in 1981 was to go back to the Government with the same proposals. We did not need to ask for money. We did not expect the Government, after two years in office, to help the GLC to extend London's public transport. We were prepared, as happened with all our capital projects except housing, to make an investment from revenue towards capital improvements in London. But the proposal was vetoed. We also wanted to construct the Hackney-Chelsea line, but the Government vetoed the proposal. The Treasury, acting through the Department of Transport under both Governments during the last 20 years, vetoed successive GLC administration proposals for increased capital expenditure on London Transport. All Governments stand condemned, but I suspect that the major villains have been the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury rather than the Department of Transport.
The Government are painfully inching towards many schemes that we welcome. They now accept that London, with a population of 7 million and providing work for people who travel in from much further away, must have a good public transport system. The Government's final recognition of that fact, in their dying days, has the support of the whole House. The tragedy is that it has taken the Government so long to recognise it.
I remember my first meeting with the then Secretary of State for Transport. He has announced that he intends to

retire from public life—it is a tragedy that that did not happen 12 years ago. His deputy was at the same meeting. He went on to devastate the national health service, and he is adopting the same approach to education. I told the then Secretary of State that we had been elected with a clear mandate to cut fares, which were the highest in Europe, so as to attract people back to public transport and reduce road congestion. We also wanted to initiate a major programme of capital expenditure so that there would be a major shift throughout the coming decade towards an improved and expanded public transport system. I told him that we wanted to build the Jubilee line out to docklands and the Hackney-Chelsea line, and that we wanted to extend some of the existing tube lines and build our own buses which could be specifically geared to conditions in London—a modernised version of the Routemaster for which Londoners have always had an affection.
All these proposals were vetoed by the Government when we debated the money resolutions. The GLC's chief officers had meetings with Treasury civil servants, at which they were told that they could not have this and they could not have that. We made the point every year that the Treasury was not giving us permission to spend enough money on London transport. Capital expenditure was needed. All that we asked was permission to spend. Let us not forget that the Secretary of State for the Environment's first act was to push through legislation giving the Government even more control over local authorities' capital budgets.
Conservative Members get up and say that the GLC subsidised fares and did not embark on capital expenditure. One reason for that was that in their first days in office the Government took over complete control of every penny of every council's capital spending. If the GLC had been left with the freedom to go in for capital spending, we should have a public transport system that was equivalent to that in Paris. The Government should not blame the GLC for their own policies.
We recognised that London Transport was not the first choice of transport for many people in London. The tubes do not run to many parts of south-east London. In many areas, people do not have access to the tube.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman talks about governmental control in 1981 and capital expenditure by local authorities. Will he confirm that councils were free to spend capital receipts if they generated them? It may be that, for ideological reasons, the GLC, when the hon. Gentleman was its chairman, did not want to generate any capital receipts.

Mr. Livingstone: On the day we took office, we instructed our officers to identify all capital assets which could be released. We sold land and houses to generate capital. In a perfect world, we should not have sold that land or those buildings, but they provided us with capital to do a little more. We were not happy about it, but we did it because we wanted every penny that we could get for capital spending. Some of the sites that we had to sell broke my heart, but we decided that it was better to spend that money on public transport than to keep those sites. Moreover, money that had been allocated to unpopular road schemes that we inherited from Sir Horace Cutler's administration was switched to public transport.
At that first meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport in June or July 1981, we said that, as the tube did not serve all parts of London, we had told British Rail that we would provide it with the same level of subsidy as we provided to the tubes so that all British Rail services in the GLC area could benefit from a fares reduction, in line with the GLC's fare reduction for London Transport. We wanted to create a common ticketing policy so that people could buy one ticket anywhere in London—a British Rail, London Transport or bus ticket—and use it anywhere in London. That policy has now been introduced for season tickets, which we welcome, but it has taken years to introduce it.
I remember the words of the Secretary of State for Transport: "For every £1 of subsidy that the GLC gives to British Rail, I'll withhold £1 of Government subsidy, thereby completely negating any subsidy that you may give." That was an act of sabotage. Who lost? The commuters lost. Those who live in the Tory outer suburbs of London—in Bromley, Croydon and Hendon—were denied a fares reduction and the integration of public transport services. I said, "We want to increase British Rail's rolling stock. We shall provide whatever subsidy is necessary to run more trains and attract people to public transport." Once again, that was vetoed.
The Government vetoed all those projects. Our only freedom was to cut fares and to squeeze whatever money we could from capital receipts to fund, the limited works that we could undertake. Had there been a Conservative GLC and a Labour Government, the evil hand of the Treasury would still have prevailed and would have vetoed the projects. Transport Ministers still have to bludgeon their way past the Treasury to get a little capital investment for London Transport.
Until Londoners elect an authority to control transport in London, it will never be responsive to the needs of Londoners. So long as it is controlled by the Treasury, the main concern of which is national economic issues, Londoners will never get a fair deal on public transport. That is why there must be an elected strategic authority for London which can concentrate on tackling such problems.
I would accept the judgment of any Londoner whom one stopped on the street in the three and a half years when the GLC was responsible for transport and the seven years which followed. Although the Government blocked all our capital investment programmes, when we cut fares we saw what we predicted—a movement of people from private transport to public transport. We saw an increase of about 10 per cent. in the use of public transport and a, reduction of about 5 per cent. in cars on the streets of London. That may not sound much, but it is the difference between the city moving well and effectively and being clogged up.
Almost a decade on, people still stop me on the streets, tubes and buses and say, "If only we could have the GLC's `Fares Fair' policy back." After a decade of slander and lies from, Conservative Members— "slander" a ter-minological exactitude—people still remember that policy, which they enjoyed, because, after 30 years of decline in public transport in London, the system began to improve. The Government of the day, who did not want popular public spending, were determined to put in their cronies and friends to run it, and they have run it into the ground.
That policy has been & disaster. Escalators can be out of action for three weeks, three months and sometimes more than a year. If that had happened while I was leader of the GLC, Conservative Back Benchers and Ministers

would have condemned it as an outrage and an indictment of socialism. I received letters if an escalator was out of action for three or four days. Nowadays, people are amazed if they can complete their journey with all the escalators working. At times, 30 per cent. of the escalators have been out of use.
That has been a damning indictment, and I do not believe that it is right that the transport of the capital city should be a matter for central Government. Such problems will bedevil any Government who take office, however pro-public transport they are, because the body best able to run London transport is an authority elected primarily for that purpose which will be answerable to Londoners and therefore much more responsive to their needs.
If the Government think that they have any popular support for their maladministration of London transport for the past seven years, I suggest that they put a simple question to the people of London: would they prefer Ken Livingstone to be taken down to Westminster tube and tied to the rails because of the maladministration of the GLC, or would they like the same fate for Ministers who have run London transport into the ground for the past seven years? I know whom Londoners would choose to sacrifice for the incompetence that has been visited on them. The only problem is that Ministers strapped to the Circle line would die of old age before a train came along.
Public transport in London will be the nail in the coffin of every Tory who in the past decade has trooped through the Lobby as the Government have demolished London transport. Our message to the people of London at the election will be, "If you want to save London transport, get rid of the bunch of gangsters who have been running it with their cronies and friends, and elect people who not only want to run it but travel on it."

Mr. John Bowis: Methinks the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will
remember with advantages
What feats he did that day.
He should remember, as we do, that many Londoners liked, and like, the idea of reducing fares to increase the attraction of public transport. However, they wanted to ensure that the increased income was invested in improved services. Sadly, the GLC's management did not lead to improved services.
When the Conservative Government took office, they had to rectify the mess in which the economy was left by the previous Labour Government. We have turned the economy round, and can join forces across the Chamber to seek improvements to public transport.
At Transport Questions today, I offered my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport immortality if he would extend the underground from Hackney to Chelsea south through Wandsworth. The stone masons are ready to erect his statue if he agrees. We were in Balham the other day discussing the possibility of erecting a statue to commemorate the famous people of Balham. We mentioned a Roman centurion because of Stane street, and Peter Sellers because of the gateway that he provided for Balham, but my hon. Friend, the "freeman" of Wandsworth borough, would be a fitting subject for a statue if he agreed to extend the Hackney-Chelsea line south into that barren territory.
The problem is that there is little public transport in south London. Anyone reading an underground map of London would think that London's southern border was the River Thames. Five small tube lines dip beneath the river.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bowis: I cannot give way; I am trying to speed through.
Although 85 per cent. of commuters into central London use public transport, there is no public transport for them to cross boroughs south of the river and they must use their cars. I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to persuade London Regional Transport to make the southern circular connection, bringing the east London line across to Balham, the Balham line to Clapham junction and up through the west London line to Willesden so that, at last, we have the outer circle line that south London so needs.
We must provide more park and ride facilities on the outer rim of the underground network to encourage people to use it. When we consider access to the underground system, we must bear in mind people with disabilities, and ensure that, at all stations, trains are sufficiently flush to platforms.
I know that I must be brief, so I shall refer quickly to one or two subjects on which I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister. I again ask him to speak to the management of London Regional Transport about Dial-A-Ride. It is being run for the convenience of LRT management. I want to ensure that the service is provided for the convenience of the users—those with disabilities. That does not necessarily mean imposing a regional structure on the system; it means allowing local people with disabilities to run their own service.
I have to hand over to the Front Benches now, so I shall conclude. There are good signs of more investment in the underground and the Government can claim credit for that. More money is being invested in the underground than ever before and more in the whole rail system than at any time since the Conservative Governments of the 1950s. We now need a responsive management. My hon. Friends referred to the possibility of private assets being brought into the public transport system. The asset that we need above all is private management skills, so that better use can be made of public financial investment.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Ms. Joan Ruddock.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the guardian of Back-Bench Members' interests. It is outrageous that London Back-Bench Members cannot speak in a debate on London transport which affects their constituencies. A short debate of about three hours on this important subject—virtually the only such debate in the year—is a poor show. More time should have been made available so that Back-Bench Members, like myself, could defend their constituents' interests. The lack of time is offensive: I hope that you can get that message across to the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to take part in the debate, and I regret that he has not had the chance to do so. He will recognise that I am only following the conventions of the House.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I share the dismay of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who may wish to intervene in my speech. I hope that I defend the interests of his constituents as I do those of other London Members.
I congratulate the Select Committee on Transport on its timely and concise, but damning, report on the finances of London Underground. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) for his presentation as Chairman of the Select Committee. On 22 October, in advance of its deliberations, I wrote to the previous Secretary of State for Transport expressing alarm at the then newly identified and previously unforeseen deficit of about £40 million.
I urged the Government to step in with a rescue package, but the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) replied that London Transport
like any other business must live within its means",
and that he had no plans to
increase their grant ceiling for the present financial year.
Months of unnecessary uncertainty have followed, but it is to the credit of the new Secretary of State that he has responded positively to the combined pressures of the all-party Select Committee report, Opposition Members and trade unions by increasing London Transport's grant in this financial year.
Perhaps the Minister will bring us more good news today. He knows that, welcome though that increase is, it does not solve the continuing crisis of London's most important mass transit system, or set it on a secure financial footing for the future. Indeed, the Select Committee found a gross deficit in London Underground's finances of £93 million, leading to a net budget shortfall of £52 million.
The Select Committee examined the causes and made some recommendations for immediate action. Sadly, it did not report substantially on the consequences of the deficit, although it ended its report by saying:
we are concerned that services to the public should be affected as little as possible.
That is a pious hope. Drastic measures have already been announced by London Underground. I challenge the Minister to demonstrate today that the planned cuts in staff and services will not further undermine confidence in London Underground, lead to a further drop in ridership and yet another cash crisis.
The Select Committee found that
poor forecasting of income from both property and fares made the 1990–91 Business Plan impossible to achieve.
That statement came as no surprise to Members on this side of the House. We have constantly criticised the fundamental philosophy on which London Transport's business plans are based. The Government, oblivious of the fact that it is achieved nowhere else in Europe, have charged London Transport with making a profit. It is their wholly unrealistic and unjustified approach which led London Underground into flights of financial fantasy that ignored the collapse of the property market and the limits of passenger tolerance.
The Select Committee identified the three causes of the immediate crisis as a drop in ridership, a drop in property sales and the safety programme. A drop in ridership was inevitable. We predicted that it would occur if the Government persisted in their philosophy. Only a year ago, the chairman of London Transport said that his policy was to
price people off the tube.
In August last year, the managing director of London Underground said:
I see no reason why the customer should not pay the cost of running the system, and that includes replacing assets and repairing trains.

Ms. Gordon: Bus services are being cut, too.

Ms. Ruddock: Indeed they are. The managing director went on to say that it would require five to seven years of real fare increases to achieve that objective. This year's increases are a good example. Tube fares rose on average 10 per cent., with some passengers facing an increase in season ticket prices of as much as 11·7 per cent.
Does the Minister not accept that combining the highest tube fares in Europe with one of the poorest services is likely to prove a disincentive to passengers? Does he think it desirable for people to be priced off the tube? Does he think it desirable for people to take to their cars instead? Does he not accept that such consequences impose wholly unjustifiable costs on London's environment, hospital casualty wards and overall business efficiency, through increasing congestion and accidents on our roads? What does he make of Mr. Newton's admission in the Select Committee that, although the pricing-off policy was supposed to apply to peak hour travel, there has been a
reduction in discretionary demand"?
Such a reduction in demand is a clear indictment of Government policy, exposing yet again the lack of strategic planning and co-operation in the capital's transport system.
I shall digress to give the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is active in transport debates, but unfortunately cannot be with us because he is in Brussels. He has asked me to record tonight the fact that the closure of the Acton Railway works, wholly owned and operated by London Transport, has meant that rebuilding and major overhauls of some underground stock must now take place elsewhere. It is ludicrous that stock must now be run up British Rail lines to the Birmingham area to be attended to.
My hon. Friend also points out that the new timetables for the Circle line trains to operate from April to July include some gaps of 15 minutes. He asks us to note that, in 1885, there was a regular timetabled service by steam-hauled trains on the Circle line, serving Westminster station at regular 10-minute intervals. Today, the service is worse than it was 100 years ago.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has referred to fares. If I had had the opportunity to make a speech, I should have talked about the impact of fares on the many people in my constituency and in those of other hon. Members who live on low incomes. Is my hon. Friend aware that, if a person on low income buys a five-day travel pass of the £2·60 variety, it will cost him about £13 a week? From April, income support will be £39·65 a week, and unemployment

benefit £41·40. So almost a third of such people's weekly incomes will go on fares, even before they have paid for their poll tax, food or rent. Is not that scandalous?

Ms. Ruddock: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. As we have said repeatedly in the House, we have the highest fares in Europe for any comparable service.
The other two causes of LUL's financial crisis were identified as falling receipts from property sales, and safety measures. On that score, the Secretary of State has much to answer for as well. Surely he must accept that it is nonsense to make public policy in an area as vital as the capital's mass transit system dependent on speculative gains in a notoriously unstable property market. Does the Minister accept that that source can no longer be relied upon? As for the £40 million deficit which is said to have arisen from additional safety works, the mind positively boggles. How could LUL not have been able to predict the pace at which it would do the works and thus know in which financial year the costs would fall? Why, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) asked in Committee, did not LUL immediately seek an extension of the external financing limit to cover these works?
What proportion of the £62·55 million payment to London Transport announced on 14 February will go to London Underground? The Minister implied in an Adjournment debate on 1 March that £55 million dealt specifically with the cash flow problems of London Underground. As I understand it, that is not what London Underground believes. I repeat the question that has already been asked: is this a grant or is it forward borrowing against the EFL of 1991–92 which must subsequently be repaid? If it is forward borrowing on next year's EFL, does the Minister accept that the same cycle will repeat itself next year?
The Select Committee's report has provided us with a quantitive insight into London Underground's affairs, but it is of course on quality that the travelling public will pass their judgment. Does the Minister accept that the recent reductions in service made by London Underground because of its financial difficulties are already undermining passenger confidence, and are thus likely to undermine the revenue base for the next financial year? We predict that the financial crisis revealed by the Select Committee's report is but the thin edge of the wedge. LUL is negotiating staff cuts amounting to close on 1,000 posts.
In a recent Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) questioned the Minister for Public Transport on this same issue. The Minister replied:
there will be no significant change in service. I understand that the proposed staff cuts of 1,000 are related mainly to the introduction of new automatic ticket barriers … Those moves are designed to make the underground as efficient as possible. They are not a reaction to a financial crisis".—[Official Report, 1 March 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1290.]

Mr. Tracey: Before the hon. Lady sits down, will she tell us how much extra money a Labour Government would spend on London transport? And does the hon. Lady have the approval for her answer of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman knows better than to ask such silly questions. We are dealing with the Select Committee's report and the Government's policies.
The Minister said that cuts in staff were not a reaction to a financial crisis. I say that LUL's staff would regard that statement as a joke, were the consequences not so


painful. LUL's senior managers appear to have done their best to follow the Government's line. Memos to staff speak of good housekeeping and efficient use of resources, but even the most loyal among them seem to think that the Government's financial policies have something to do with the problem. The general manager of the Northern line told his staff in a memo that the Government were faced with huge demands for education and health and as yet did not know the full costs of the Gulf war. The manager of the Victoria line—12 trains short for much of last year; six trains short now—told his staff that their new timetable will be more realistic to operate. As there are to be 10 fewer train operators, we can assume that there will be fewer trains. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that only 24 trains are running regularly now at peak times on the Victoria line.
The manager of Central line acknowledges that the volume of his customer traffic fell by 4 per cent. in 1989 and by 5·5 per cent. in 1990. At Question Time today, the Minister denied that ridership was falling. Perhaps I can press him to say whether it is falling on Central line, and whether he expects a further fall in ridership on that line, given that it too is scheduled to sustain significant staff cuts and a 3 per cent. reduction in peak hour services.
The actual list of job cuts over which the Minister drew a veil today includes but 300 booking office clerk jobs—out of a total of 980 jobs, including those of train operators, guards, leading railwaymen, station foremen, and passenger services support jobs and engineering operations. How does all that accord with the Minister's statement that the job losses are related to the automatic ticketing system and not in response to the financial crisis?
It is our contention that the financial crisis is deep and continuing. We welcome any assurance that the Secretary of State can give about better financial management. Indeed, we would welcome an all-round improvement in management in LUL, but the problem remains: if the Government set unrealistic targets, London Underground will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis. The current round of cuts will, I predict, be self-defeating. Booking offices at more than 100 stations are to have severely restricted opening hours and real time closures. Some booking offices are to be closed altogether, and some stations to be entirely unstaffed. Does the Minister really not believe that these closures amount to a reduction in service, or that ridership will not be adversely affected?
Many people, especially women, are already deterred from travelling outside peak hours by the lack of staff on stations. These latest measures can only exacerbate their fears and contribute to yet further decreases in ridership —and to further problems for LUL's staff morale, to more violence against staff, to vandalism and to graffiti at stations. What does the Minister expect to happen to the crime figures?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) pointed out, those wonderful experiments on the Northern line which have proved successful and which Ministers have frequently applauded are to end. It appears again that, although the Minister was not aware of it at Question Time, the additional staff are to be withdrawn from the Northern line from April and reductions in the numbers of revenue protection and ticket office staff will also be implemented.
Does the Minister expect the crime figures to rise? Does he deny that this measure too is related to the cash crisis? If, as I suspect, he shares our dismay at the thought of the underground becoming less safe, will he see that the staff cuts are reversed?
I could go on and on about the cuts, not least about the sad plight of LUL's award-winning cleaning and premises department, which was a success story—cleaner es-calators, platforms and station premises, even with reduced staffing—yet the department is to be chopped. What price safety, when the King's Cross fire showed all too tragically the need for a strict cleaning regime?
Even all this is not the end of the story, however. Just before the debate began, I received a leaked copy of the passenger services directorate's proposed operating costs budget for 1991–92. It takes account of the so-called stage 2 cuts—the 1,000 jobs to which I have already referred —but it ominously looks forward to a further round of —stage 3—job losses totalling nearly 800 posts.
It cynically argues that the management expect there to be industrial action as a result of the current 1,000 job cuts, and that that will provide the opportunity to put in place
more radical working practice and employment changes arising from Level 3.
Those changes had already been rejected in 1989 by LUL workers, and it was agreed that they would not be undertaken. That is a cynical move.
The level 3 changes will result in the loss of 248 train staff, 458 station staff and 94 train maintenance staff—a total of 798 posts. Does the Minister believe that LUL management should hope for industrial action in order to force through more staff cuts? Is that the style of management of which the Minister approves?
The Select Committee's report must be seen as a dire warning of continuing financial crisis within LUL. It is all too evident that it cannot run a safe, efficient and passenger-friendly service without more Government financial support. It is patently clear that the Government's policy towards public transport in the City is a disaster. No number of promises for the future can make up for the fact that the day-to-day running of services falls far below the reasonable expectation of Londoners. The Government simply cannot blame that state of affairs on London Transport's poor financial management, although it is obvious that it was in such a state and needed to be tackled, the political responsibility for the mess clearly lies with the Secretary of State, who has set himself up as the strategic authority for transport in London.
I trust that the Minister will explain how LUL fortunes will be turned around to provide the high-quality services and safe and affordable public transport that Londoners demand.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has encouraged a hare that has been running around the Chamber tonight to run even faster with her allegation that a further 800 jobs are to be cut imminently. I repudiate that claim.
London Transport cannot complete its budget until my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has concluded the review of the external financing limit for 1991–92. However, the current budget, which has been drawn on a prudent basis, does not provide for a further


reduction of 800 jobs. That allegation is alarmist, unnecessary and without foundation in terms of its likely impact on London Underground. I am sure that budget options are under consideration by the middle management of London Transport, but I hope that the hon. Member for Deptford is not encouraging industrial action on London Transport.

Ms. Ruddock: No—the management are encouraging that.

Mr. Freeman: I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady is not giving such encouragement. I therefore hope that she will not give credence to leaked documents, which probably come from the unions involved, commenting upon options which have no foundation in reality.

Ms. Ruddock: In fairness, the Minister should know that the document to which I referred comes from Ian Athurton, the passenger services director, and it was he who referred to industrial action.

Mr. Freeman: I assure the hon. Lady and the House that there is no prospect of which I am aware of a further round of job reductions.
The hon. Member for Deptford referred to 1,000 jobs which might be affected—I stress "might", as we are still talking about proposals. I have already said on several occasions from the Dispatch Box that the job reductions relate primarily to the introduction of modern ticketing equipment and that they will not jeopardise the safe and efficient operation of the underground. I would share the hon. Lady's concern if any hon. Member provided examples of where that safe and efficient operation was jeopardised.

Mr. Cohen: rose——

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman was denied the opportunity to speak because of the effluxion of time, but if he would like to come up and see me some time, I should be happy to spend half an hour with him.

Mr. Cohen: The Mae West Minister.

Mr. Freeman: I must get on, as I have only 16 minutes at my disposal.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), the Chairman of the Select Committee, for not being in my place when he spoke. The Committee's report is most helpful and I hope that, in answering some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Deptford, I shall answer some of the points raised, by the Committee.
The £55 million increase in grant that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has anounced is part of an overall increase which is higher than that, and includes additional provision for the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail. That provision is ring-fenced in the estimates, but the £55 million increase is for LRT, as we do not deal directly with the underground. That grant is a once-and-for-all increase in the cash resources available. The underground is part of LRT, however, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has sought to address with that cash increase the problems, rightly referred to in the Select Committee report, caused by property shortfall and unavoidable increases in safety expenditure and so on.
The hon. Members for Deptford and for Shettleston asked about the budget for next year and we are at present considering what changes are needed to the external financing limit for 1991–92. I am unable to make any announcement on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State tonight, but undoubtedly an announcement will be made shortly. We are realists, and we understand that, if there is a property shortfall, it reduces the resources available to LRT. My right hon. and learned Friend has already demonstrated that we appreciate the problems that London Underground faces by awarding the £55 million. We also increased the public service obligation grant to British Rail this year by £100 million.
The hon. Members for Deptford and Shettleston also asked about distinguishing between the existing underground system and new schemes undertaken by LRT. This year, investment in the existing systems on the underground is at a record level of £400 million. I am aware that London Underground would like more money: I shall say something about that later. In the next three years, the grant for LRT will be £2·4 billion, and roughly £1 billion will be allocated for new lines—the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail—and £1·4 billion for the rest of the existing business.
Hon. Members will appreciate that, judged by any historical standards, the £1·4 billion represents a substantial investment programme. It will cover the refurbishment of the Central line at £700 million—new carriages will be in use by September next year and the resignalling should be completed within three years. The Angel station on the Northern line will receive £72 million for new work—the sums to be allocated are enormous. Circle line trains will also be refurbished. Earlier, I said that I expected those new trains to come into operation next year, but I was wrong: they will be in operation from this summer. I invite the hon. Member for Deptford to enjoy with me those pleasantly refurbished, graffiti-free trains.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made a perceptive contribution and spoke about non-user benefits—I assume that that was the burden of his argument. He said that the underground would never be profitable in a commercial sense, and he is right. The new underground lines have been approved largely because of the decongestion benefits to central London. We apply that principle to light rail systems as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge asked about the future and to what extent London Underground Limited could, generate sufficient cash to replace its existing assets without having to find the resources internally to build the new lines. I do not anticipate that LUL will ever be able to generate sufficient cash to build new lines, but in the years ahead it might be able to find some of that cash without radical fare increases. I know that LUL would like to be in that position.
During the summer, in the course of the public expenditure survey bidding round, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider proposals from LRT for additional investment. The Select Committee referred to that when it spoke of the investment programmes for the next three years. I confirm that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider any sensible proposition.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked who should take the blame for financial mismanagement. I do not want to get into a


detailed attempt at passing the buck, but the hon. Gentleman may be aware that LRT has appointed a new financial director, Mr. Sheppeck and that LUL has also announced a new financial director, Mr. Hughes. I hope that they will be able to contribute to a better system of financial control. The hon. Gentleman should be aware, however, that operating any nationalised industry, which is subject to cash controls as a commercial business is extremely difficult whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government. The revenue may suddenly fall, operating costs may suddenly rise for various reasons, and the industry has either to go to the Treasury for additional funds or to cut its investment programme. That problem has been with us for years.
The problems of financial management, faced by both British Rail and LRT, are formidable. To blame them for getting the figures wrong is unfair and unreasonable. They have to operate under peculiar restraints. That is not to say that they should not be able to plan and control cash expenditure and to know the cash position. The Select Committee has done the House a service in pointing out the shortcomings in LRT.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey argued that LRT needed more money. In a timely intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) asked the hon. Member for Deptford what further resources a Labour Government would provide. He was put down and told that that was a silly question. My job is to defend not the operational record of BR or LRT but the Government's position on resources. We have doubled in real terms the resources available for LRT over the next three years.
Granted, there is a significant burden for the new operating lines—the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail—but that burden falls on the taxpayer, because it is a non-repayable, non-interest-bearing grant. The money comes straight out of the Exchequer and goes straight to LRT. That is a creditable record, although we could do better, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider new investment schemes. In the next general election campaign, the hon. Lady will have to face up to what resources a Labour Administration would be prepared to put into London Transport.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about the Northern line. I always associate the hon. Member for Tooting with the problems of the Northern line, problems that we understand. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is getting up at 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning to travel on the Northern line with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South so as to see the problems. I know that the Northern line is called the misery line, but we cannot sensibly afford the resources to refurbish both the Central line and the Northern line at the same time. The Central line refurbishment is costing £700 million. Refurbishment of the Northern line will follow.

Mr. Cox: I have heard all this before.

Mr. Freeman: When? Our constituents suffer from overcrowding—today, tonight, tomorrow morning. The Central line refurbishment is on schedule. A substantial sum is being spent on it; the new stock will come into

service in September 1992 and the resignalling should be finished two to three years after that. We shall make a start on the Northern line as soon as resources permit. Refurbishment of Angel station, which is on the Northern line, is costing £72 million.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, South and for Surbiton both spoke about buses. The Government are grateful to them for their support for the principle of deregulation. This afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend published a consultation document on deregula-tion and privatisation of London buses. The document spells out the arguments for deregulation and tendering. I am sure that the House will return to the subject. Some 4 million passengers per day travel on London Buses. As has been said, that is the same number as travel on Network Southeast and London Underground combined—a substantial number. That patronage has not fallen.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said something about bus traffic being down by 30 per cent. If it is, it is not in London. There has been a fall in patronage in the provinces, but since 1979 the number of journeys on London Buses has remained unaltered at 1·2 billion per annum and the number of passenger kilometres has also remained unchanged, at between 4·3 billion and 4·4 billion per annum.
I am glad that patronage in London is broadly holding, but our proposals for deregulation are based on the principle that we can bring valuable benefits to Londoners by providing for more services to be offered with new technology, servicing different parts of the capital at different times, by commercial operators. We do not want to see the end of the traditional double-decker red bus, and that will not happen, but we want to permit new operators to come in and provide a service so as to get more people travelling by bus.
Some faint hearts have argued that deregulation will exacerbate the problem of congestion in Greater London, but the reverse is the case. Our aim is to reduce congestion in Greater London by persuading more people, of all ages and callings, to leave their motor cars at home, and to travel by bus. I am grateful for that welcome to the publication of the deregulation paper by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
I am also grateful for the recognition by the hon. Member for Tooting that crime statistics on the Northern line, and the southern section of it in particular, have improved, in that there has been less crime. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) has asked me about crime statistics, and I will look at them. Crime statistics for London Underground as a whole have also improved, in the same way. The trend is encouraging. British Transport police are to be thanked and congratulated. In part, the improvement is due to the introduction of new technology such as cameras, panic buttons and mirrors, and the new technology which has allowed staff to be released from the mundane tasks of isssuing and collecting tickets.
The hon. Member for Tooting referred to the escalators at Balham. I am told that they were working this morning and that they have been back in service two weeks after our joint visit. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are not working or that they have broken down. If they have, perhaps he will let me know.

Ms. Ruddock: The special measures for the southern section of the Northern line included a 100 per cent. increase in staffing levels for particularly vulnerable


stations. That 100 per cent. increase will be done away with from 1 April. That was the point of my question and of that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall.

Mr. Freeman: I understand that there is a relationship between the number of staff available and crime—that is true on British Rail and London Underground—although there is not an exact correlation between crime statistics and staff. At Question Time, I gave the hon. Member for Vauxhall an undertaking that I would pursue the point, because I share her concern about the fear felt by women travelling alone on public transport. This is not a party political matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton rightly drew attention to the GLC's low fares policy. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is no longer here, but I thought that my hon. Friend was right. Irrespective of the permission which may or may not have been given for capital investment while the Labour GLC was in control of London Transport, by pursuing a low fares policy the GLC ensured that the resources needed for ploughing back as investment were not there. Whatever the rights and wrongs of 10 years ago, we have to address ourselves to the situation today.
The underground is overcrowded. To go back to a policy of reducing fares would be ridiculous. It would result in less resources and more overcrowding when what is needed is more investment. That investment, on the whole, can come only from the Government. We have already supported a significant underground building programme and I dare say that more projects are yet to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton called for a strategy and, by implication, for a long-term co-ordinated strategy for London. Nothing about a co-ordinated or a long-term strategy is anathema to Conservatives. The hon. Member for Deptford smiles—perhaps she is surprised at that. Perhaps we have been hiding our light under a bushel all these years. Co-ordination must be at the heart of any sensible transport policy, and long-term thinking must be one of its essential features. Our policy should be seen to have both.

The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and the Resolution [1 March].

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Perhaps it will be helpful if I make clear that the debate may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, is responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

7 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £104·8 million in the 1990–91 spring supplementary estimates. This will bring the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £4,418 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote on account of £1,941 million for 1991–92, to enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1991–92 main estimates for Northern Ireland are brought before the House later this year.
Details of the sums sought are given in the estimates booklet and the statement of sums required on account which as usual, are available in the Vote Office. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reminded the House, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, for law and order services, are not covered by the Order before the House today.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that, if law and order are not covered, the application of this expenditure is somewhat curtailed and we do not reap the benefits that we should reap?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
Before drawing attention to some of the main features of the estimates, I should like to set them in the context of Northern Ireland's recent economic performance. At national level, we are experiencing a temporary downturn in economic activity as we make the adjustment to a low-inflation, more highly competitive economy. The Northern Ireland economy can be expected to follow a similar path. We can see this in the increase in unemployment during the past three months. The January figure of 97,500, or 14 per cent. of the work force, is disappointingly high, but it is still 1,700 below the figure for the same time last year.
Another encouraging sign is that, in the year to September 1990, output in both the manufacturing and the production industries rose by 3 per cent. and the numbers in employment increased by 1,200. But we dare not be complacent. It is essential that we defeat inflation, in the interests of both the Northern Ireland economy and the United Kingdom as a whole. While interest rates are still higher than any of us would wish, I am encouraged by the recent sharp downturn in inflation and the prospect of further reductions in the coming months. Equally, it is important that local industry—employees as well as employers—recognise that prosperity and enduring employment depend on improving efficiency and competitiveness.
I now turn to the estimates. As is customary on these occasions, I do not propose to refer to every vote where supplementary provision is being sought. I shall concentrate instead on the main items.
I shall start with the Department of Agriculture vote 1, which provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures. An extra £1·3 million is required for payments under the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme, and £1 million for residual payments under former capital grant schemes. These increases are offset by reduced requirements under other capital grant schemes, particularly the farm and conservation grant scheme, where uptake and investment levels are lower than expected. The result is a token increase of £1,000 in the vote.
In Department of Agriculture vote 2, covering local support measures, additional provision of £1·5 million is required, principally for disease eradication measures and for special temporary aid to the pig and poultry sectors. These increases are offset by additional receipts, mainly from timber sales, and by delays in the commencement of major fishery harbour development works. Again, this results in a token increase of £1,000 in the vote.
Turning to the Department of Economic Development, token supplementaries are sought for votes 1 and 2. In vote 1, the main increase is an additional £11·5 million for factory building, as a result of increased demand from companies for custom-built industrial premises. This reflects the Industrial Development Board's continuing success in attracting internationally mobile projects to Northern Ireland.
The Government will continue their efforts to encourage internationally competitive companies engaged in manufacturing and tradeable services to come to the Province, so as to create the conditions for growth in durable employment. My ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote Northern Ireland as a successful investment base and to challenge its negative image abroad. I know from my recent visits to the United States how essential it is to bring the positive attractions of Northern Ireland to the attention of potential investors, and I intend to continue to put this message across in the months ahead.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I hope that, when my hon. Friend addresses American audiences, he emphasises that Northern Ireland is a United Kingdom responsibility and that the observations of many Americans have come very close to interference.

Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly make it clear that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom.
In Department of Economic Development vote 2, additional funding of £6·2 million is sought for the local enterprise development unit. This will enable LEDU to meet current commitments for selective financial assistance and to continue the development of a network of local enterprise agencies. There are now a total of 27 such agencies operating in the Province, providing work space and business support to local entrepreneurs, who are currently providing some 2,000 jobs.
Also in this vote, an increase of £1·1 million is sought for the fair employment support scheme, owing to higher than expected uptake. This scheme offers private-sector

employers practical and financial help to implement best practice in relation to fair employment. Since the scheme was launched in March 1988, about 1,150 firms have taken advantage of it. That is very encouraging and shows that employers are facing up to their responsibilities in this important area.
Elsewhere in this vote, an additional £920,000 is sought for the Northern Ireland tourist board for additional marketing activities, such as an 'Ulster-Canada Year' promotion, to promote Northern Ireland as a holiday destination. An extra £550,000 is also sought for capital grants to district councils to improve tourist facilities, such as visitor centres and picnic sites. The past few years have seen a welcome upturn in Northern Ireland's tourism, and these extra funds will allow us to build on our success in attracting a record 1·1 million visitors to Northern Ireland in 1989.
As I said at Question Time some weeeks ago, it would benefit Northern Ireland and its tourist industry and would greatly benefit right hon. and hon. Members if they were to visit the Province. They would learn what a beautiful place it is, and would have their understanding put in a much more sympathetic and developed content than is apparent in the contributions of at least some of them.
The Department of the Environment vote 1, seeks additional provision of £1·7 million for the maintenance of roads and street lighting. This is offset by reductions in other subheads and increased receipts from vehicle testing, leaving a token of £1,000.
An additional £700,000 is sought for the Department's vote 2. The main increase is £6·6 million for the Housing Executive, bringing the executive's gross expenditure for the year to £467 million. This additional requirement is offset by almost £6 million in loans not taken up by housing associations—reflecting a more difficult housing market.
The Department of the Environment vote 3 is also a token, because extra receipts, including those from water charges, offset the additional £2·9 million required for capital expenditure to improve water services. All told, an additional £96 million will be spent by the water service over the next three years to improve the already high quality of drinking water supplies in Northern Ireland, in line with European Community requirements. This is part of a major capital programme of £500 million, over the next decade or so, that will also improve facilities for treating sewage effluent, thereby protecting coastal waters. Northern Ireland's bathing waters are already among the cleanest in the United Kingdom. In 1990, all but one of the 16 identified bathing waters met the mandatory EC standards.
Department of the Environment vote 6 seeks an extra £250,000 to provide an additional 24 full-time firemen to be employed by the fire authority for Northern Ireland, bringing the total to 849.
I move on to the Department of Education. A net increase of £13·6 million is sought in vote 1. The main addition is £20·6 million for grants to the education and library boards. That is needed to cover pay awards and price increases amounting to about £14 million, and increased expenditure on mandatory student awards and on the youth training programme. A further £2·8 million is for capital grants. These increases are partly offset by reduced requirements elsewhere, especially a decrease of £4·6 million in employers' contributions to the teachers'


superannuation scheme, following a review of the scheme by the Government Actuary. I assure the House that the change will not affect the level of, or entitlement to, teachers' pensions, as will be apparent from the corresponding provision in vote 3 of the Department of Education.
The House will be interested to learn that an additional £360,000 is included in the vote for expenditure on grant-maintained integrated schools. The 1989 education reform order provided for the setting up of that type of school where parents wanted them. I am pleased to say that 10 proposals for grant-maintained integrated status have so far been approved. Between them, the schools have about 2,300 pupils on their rolls. The extra resources sought will ensure that these schools receive the same level of financial support as other schools of comparable size. In addition to the 10 proposals already approved, two are currently under consideration and further proposals are expected. That is further evidence of the growing demand from parents that their children should be educated alongside children of other denominations in schools that value both traditions equally.
In the Department's vote 2, a net increase of £1·9 million is sought for a range of services. The main increase of £2·3 million is for increased grants to the two universities in Northern Ireland. The increase has been recommended by the Universities Funding Council to cover expenditure on equipment and a computer network. Provision is also made in the vote for an initiative to improve access by disabled people to the arts.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, an additional £20 million is sought in vote 1. This includes £14·6 million for health and social services boards. mainly to cover increased pay costs and service development. An additional £7·1 million is required for the family practitioner service to meet extra expenditure arising from the new general practitioner contracts and increased drug costs. The new GP contracts, which were introduced from 1 April 1990, are raising standards of care by making services more responsive to the needs of the consumer and by placing greater emphasis on illness prevention. Information to date shows that GPs are supporting the initiative, especially in areas such as immunisation, vaccination and health promotion.
An additional £5 million is required in DHSS vote 3, including £2·4 million for health and personal social services. Of that sum, £1·7 million is for the independent living fund, reflecting increased demand. The aim of the fund is to give severely disabled people the help that they need to enable them to live independently in the community.
In vote 4, which covers social security, an additional £50 million is sought. This covers revised estimates of the numbers receiving a range of benefits, but chiefly a technical payment of over £40 million into the Northern Ireland national insurance fund, and expenditure on industrial injuries benefits, which is now a charge on the Consolidated Fund.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Minister say anything about money that is available for new hospitals under the health estimates?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are dealing essentially with supplementary

estimates. The funding to which he refers will be covered by the main estimates, with which we are not dealing this evening.
Finally, I draw attention to vote 3 of the Department of Finance and Personnel, where an additional £700,000 is sought for the community relations programme. Improving relations between the different parts of the Northern Ireland community remains one of the Government's highest priorities. We have developed a range of programmes over the past three years to promote cross-country contact and appreciation of cultural diversity. These include programmes by district councils to develop community relations work at local level arid a cultural traditions programme that promotes appreciation of cultural diversity through the arts, the cultural institutions and the media, and through the Irish language.

Mr. David Trimble: On that general point, and especially on the cultural traditions programme, does the Minister consider that it would be better for the programme to promote the traditions of both communities, unlike the conference organised next week, which will reflect the interests of one community only, judging by those who will participate in it?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when he advanced that argument to me recently I said that it was a fair one that would be reflected to those who have responsibility for organising the programmes of the conferences. That includes next week's conference and any others which may follow it. He will agree that there was a degree of cross-community contributions to the two earlier conferences.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister prepared to say that unless on future occasions conferences clearly reflect both traditions, the Department will reconsider its funding of such projects?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows that the cultural traditions programme falls under the responsibility of the Council for Community Relations. As I said, a fair argument has been advanced by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) which I shall reflect to those who have responsibility for organising the conference. Knowing them as I do, I suspect that the argument will be accepted as a helpful contribution and that they will take careful note of it.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for giving way to me for a second time. I take his point that the previous two conferences reflected both strands. They did so mainly because people from both communities were represented, partly through myself and my associates. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the restructuring of the cultural traditions group people representing our outlook were excluded from the committee charged with organising the conference? Will he take steps to ensure that those who administer the fund will try to restore their committees to bodies that operate on a representative basis?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his contribution in the earlier part of the development of the programme. I am happy to acknowledge that it was of real significance. As I said, he has advanced a fair argument. I shall reflect the concerns


that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to those who are responsible for organising the conferences.
The Government's financial support for community relations work has been increased from about £500,000 in 1986–87 to £4 million in this financial year. That covers projects supported by the central community relations unit and the Department of Education. I expect that that expenditure in 1991–92 will be higher still. I am convinced that, over time, the programme will be seen to have contributed significantly to greater mutual understanding and to creating a climate where dialogue, rather than violence, is accepted as the means of resolving conflict. I am sure that that objective is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In these opening remarks I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will respond to the contributions made by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Minister of State for taking us so meticulously through the order. I shall not follow the customary practice on such occasions by going through the order in a similarly detailed way. However, I shall raise some specific items and then move on to the general problem of the economy of the Province. Before doing so, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister who is to wind up the debate and to the House as I have to leave at 9.45 pm. I have meetings in Leicester early tomorrow morning about a fire, which some people may have seen reported in the press over the weekend, so I shall be absent when the Minister winds up the debate.
My first specific point concerns Government expenditure priorities. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced at the Central Community Relations Unit conference on equality of opportunity that a new main priority for public expenditure was to be designated, targeting social need. Although that is commendable, will the Minister press the Secretary of State to make a much clearer statement on that proposal and its implications in terms of resources and how it will interlink with other programmes and policies?
Will the Government also make an early statement on their intentions regarding the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity? I am sure that the Government accept that the matter has been going on for far too long and is leading to great uncertainty. Will the Government make an early announcement as to whether they intend, as rumour suggests, to split electricity supply and generation in the Province? The Labour party's views are well known —that the privatisation of such a small energy producer is ridiculous in the circumstances. If the Government decide to split generation and supply, the result will be even more ridiculous.
Will the Government make a statement on the resignation last week of the chairman of Northern Ireland Electricity? I presume that his resignation was not simply the result of personal pique. I am sure that the House

would be delighted if the Minister would say whether the chairman resigned because he disagreed with the thrust of the Government's proposals on privatisation.
What are the Government's proposals on the possible gas pipeline between Britain and Ireland——

Mr. Trimble: Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marshall: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would learn to listen and hear the end of the sentence. My use of the word "Ireland" in this context is clear.
Will the Minister comment on the possible gas pipeline between Britain and the island of Ireland and the possibility of a spur from that pipeline going to the Province? I realise that my question contains two hypothetical points. On a third hypothetical point, if a decision were taken to have such a spur to the north, could the gas supply be used for commercial purposes and not just for electricity generation at Kilroot?

Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that, in seeking to have a gas pipeline to Northern Ireland, members of the Ulster Unionist party are concerned about the whole of the United Kingdom. If a pipeline came from south-west Scotland, it would benefit many more people who vote for the Labour party in that part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it would be much safer to send gas from Northern Ireland to the Republic. It would be less of a target for the IRA if it went from north to south rather than came from south to north.

Mr. Marshall: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I would have far more sympathy with his views if he had been among those who condemned Northern Ireland Electricity for importing South African coal into the Province, thus denying employment to miners in the Scottish coalfields.
A further question concerns compulsory competitive tendering. We all realise that there are clear political differences on that issue and fears about it in Northern Ireland. What is the Government's latest position on compulsory competitive tendering in relation to the health and education boards and the district councils?
The campaigns that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) have been fighting on behalf of local hospitals have the Labour party's support.
The Minister said that there is now clear evidence that the Northern Ireland economy is in recession. Economic activity has continued to decline with little or no prospect of improvement in 1991. The signs have been emerging over several months—they have not appeared suddenly —and I am especially worried by the fact that, although there have been signs of a downturn in economic activity, only in recent weeks have we seen evidence of it in unemployment figures. In the coming months, unemployment could increase substantially. Despite the Minister's sanguine response, the problem will be overcome only by clear changes in the direction of Government economic policy, not just in the Province but in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not seen this evening's Belfast Telegraph, in which attention is drawn to the fact that the recession will probably not bite quite so deeply in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, because the industries that were brought in and could move out again as soon as the recession hit


them were lost 10 years ago, so it looks as though we shall suffer more lightly than the rest of the United Kingdom this time.

Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman listened more carefully to my comments instead of being obsessed with his own thoughts and his need to comment, he would appreciate that I said that there had been evidence for several months that economic activity in the Province was declining, and there is no evidence that that trend will be reversed in the next few months.
If the hon. Gentleman is correct—I accept his figures —and Northern Ireland will not be so adversely affected as the rest of the United Kingdom, that may be a source of comfort to some, but it will not comfort the thousands of people who will lose their jobs as a result of the economic downturn in the Province. Although the hon. Gentleman offers some consolation, in the medium to long term it does not offer any comfort to the people of Northern Ireland. As I said before his intervention, the long-term economic future of the Province can be assured only by dramatic changes in the direction of Government policy.
All hon. Members from the Province should be worried about the threat that the single market after 1992 is likely to pose to the Northern Ireland economy. "The Regional Economic Review" published in February 1991 by Cambridge Economic Consultants gives horrendous figures. It predicts a loss of up to 40,000 jobs in Northern Ireland in the first 10 years of the single market. The review states:
For the Northern Region, the North-West and Northern Ireland in the absence of any strengthening in regional policy, substantial falls in employment are projected.
As the House knows, the European Commission highlighted those manufacturing sectors in each member country that are likely to be vulnerable because of the single market. Unfortunately, some of them are major employers in the Province. They include clothing, carpets, glass, electrical machinery and aerospace products. The European Commission highlighted those sectors as being particularly vulnerable post-1922.
What has been the Government's response to the recession and what is their likely response to the difficulties that we may face in the Province post-1992? Last year, we had a debate about reform of the Industrial Development Board, which will be one of the Government's main vehicles to encourage inward investment and further investment in the Province. I criticised that reform to some extent, and I repeat my criticism. I described the reform as "too little, too late" and as "timid and half-hearted" because of the Government's resistance to market intervention even when the market failed.
I stand by that criticism. First, the proposals did not provide a comprehensive economic development strategy, which people in the Province—with the exception of the Government—generally agreed was necessary. Secondly, I welcomed the need to concentrate on investment other than capital—investment in training—but I said that it should not be an either/or situation. We must try to achieve a mix of different types of investment. Thirdly, I said that real jobs should remain a permanent feature of the measure of success of any policy. That certainly does not happen with the Government's policy.
I welcomed, and still welcome, parts of the training and employment strategy, but it needs strengthening in two ways. My first point applies not just to the Province but to the United Kingdom as a whole. There needs to be clearer

recognition by companies of their responsibilities to provide training. Secondly, it is essential to seek the view of people other than just employers on improving the quality of training for young entrants in the labour market, on training for the unemployed and on retraining those already in employment. On that point, I differ from the Government. The Labour party believes that this strategy applies to trade unions, which should be automatically included, and to others with expertise—for example, the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission and for those who work with the unemployed.
Although the Government wish to keep within the guidelines laid down by the European Commission, in practice they fail to keep within the spirit of the provision of European Community structural funds. I repeat a charge which I made before from the Dispatch Box: the Government still refuse to apply genuine additionality in the operation of structural funds in the Province.
It is instructive to compare expenditure in the Irish Republic and that in Northern Ireland. It is expected that, between 1989 and 1993, the republic will receive 3,672 million ecu, with only 793 million ecu going to Northern Ireland. Committee B of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body stated:
The average allocation of structural funds across objective 1 areas is 521 ecu per head. Northern Ireland will receive slightly below this average while Ireland will receive 1038 ecu per head … Per capita, citizens of Ireland receive about twice the amount received by citizens of Northern Ireland".

Rev. Ian Paisley: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, the percentage that given because Northern Ireland was an objective 1 area was increased by only about 8 per cent., just covering inflation, while the allocation was increased by more than 75 per cent. in the republic and by more than 100 per cent. in some parts of the objective 1 areas. We surely got a raw deal there. The Commissioner asked us why Northern Ireland Ministers did not submit proposals. That vital point must be ventilated in the House.

Mr. Marshall: I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's point, which reinforces my own.
The regional secretary of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union in the Province, Mr. John Freeman, said:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to attribute the Republic's success in attracting structural funds to its low GDP. The Inter-Parliamentary Committee report"—
to which I referred—
indicates that Portugal and Greece will only receive 687 and 672 ecus per head respectively. Yet these are undoubtedly the poorest countries within the Community. In the case of Northern Ireland, perhaps there is scope for looking at the quality of the projects put forward. Certainly, in the Republic, there is a much greater scale of consultation over projects … If Northern Ireland is to survive the intensely more competitive conditions post 1992, we reqnire more than moral exhortations from Government to compete better, we need a complete re-examination of our relationship with Brussels and better bids for a bigger proportion of the structural funds".
The Opposition agree with those comments, but far more effort must be put into attracting increased levels of structural fund expenditure into the Province. What must be done to improve the long-term economic prospects in the Province?
The Minister for Public Transport, who wound up the previous debate said that the Government were prepared to accept the need for a co-ordinated and comprehensive strategy. I remind the Government that such an economic strategy is also required if there is to be any long-term economic development in the Province. First, such a strategy must include a proper level of investment in high quality training and retraining and it must ensure that resources are targeted efficiently, and not just in terms of the industrial development board's dubious definition of competitiveness. We must ensure that real employment opportunities are created in all geographical areas of the Province.
Secondly, the strategy must ensure that the Province receives its proper share of the European Community's structural funds and that those funds are genuinely additional to existing levels of public expenditure. Thirdly, as part of a coherent and comprehensive strategy, there is a need to combine the functions of the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit to provide a single, one-stop development agency.
Fourthly, as I said earlier, there is a clear need to impose a legal obligation on all employers to provide training. Unless there is such a co-ordinated, coherent policy, Northern Ireland will continue to lose out and could be further devastated by events after 1992.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noted that the Minister took only 18 minutes to open the debate. I shall make my contribution by not speaking at all. I wonder if it would meet with your wishes if I were to suggest that all right hon. and hon. Members tried to limit their speeches to 16 minutes, so that everyone who wished to speak could be called.

Mr. Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Opposition so wished, they would have had the right to wind up the debate. On this occasion —as on previous occasions—we do not intend to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will follow the conventions in these matters. I am equally grateful to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He will recognise that the Chair has no authority on such occasions to limit speeches, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will heed the wise advice, for which I am sure that we are grateful.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not make any promises about time, but I shall try to set a good example, as example is better than precept. It is all right for an hon. Member who is not going to speak to read us a homily on time, but we accept it in the spirit in which it was given. The debate can last until 11.30 pm, and I should think that we would want to take every moment of that precious time to debate the issues.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for raising issues which are of great importance to Northern Ireland's economy. We have serious problems, and we must face up to them. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now experiencing what we have

been experiencing in Northern Ireland. In spite of all the eulogies paid to it, the Common Market will not solve our economic ills or bring us prosperity and employment.
I remember what the former leader of the Conservative party said when campaigning for us to join the Common Market. He said that we should have no more unemployment, that we should enter a vast market which was just waiting for the ability, talent and skills of the British people to take it over. We never had unemployment to the extent that we now have until we joined the Common Market.
The report to which the hon. Member for Leicester, South referred makes solemn reading for us all. If we lose 40,000 more jobs in 1992 and in the following years, the situation will be grave. The Common Market struck a tremendous blow to Ulster's agriculture-based economy. Intensive farming was reduced by almost two thirds because we could not buy animal feed at a competitive price. Therefore, the intensive farming sector was hammered.
Shipbuilding and man-made fibres also come under the axe as a result of the Common Market's policy. There was a time when Northern Ireland produced 30 per cent. of all the man-made fibres in the United Kingdom, but' that industry has practically gone. We received a body blow when we joined the Common Market, and we shall continue to receive such blows.
It will be noted that the three Northern Irish Members of the European Parliament have campaigned strongly for our fair share of the structural funds, but we did not get our fair share. We were diddled out of everything, because the 8 per cent. only covers inflation, which takes us back to where we started. It is no use saying that the Community recognises us as an objective 1 area when it is of no benefit to us.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicester, South highlighted what the Republic has been receiving. I have been highlighting that for years and shall continue to do so. The time has come when Northern Ireland should at least get back what it puts in. It does not get back what it puts in per head of its citizens. That is an important point. I do not know why the Departments are not eager to have the co-operation of their Members of the European Parliament. I have been in Europe for 10 years, but I and my two colleagues have only once been brought to Stormont and consulted on one matter.
In those 10 years, the Departments have not been prepared to use the representatives from Northern Ireland. When we make our representations, we make them in a vacuum, because we have to find out what proposals are being suggested. I should have thought that the time had come when the Departments in Northern Ireland should make up their minds that they will get the money which is theirs by right.
I trust that there will be a Damascus road experience. We could call it a Brussels road experience, except that I do not like Brussels. The Minister needs to be converted. I welcome to the Dispatch Box his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who represents agriculture. Northern Ireland's agricultural interests should never have been represented by a Member of the other place. Agriculture should be represented here, so that we can get at the Minister and the Minister can get at us; we can then have a fair exchange.
I do not go along with the spokesman of the Ulster Farmers Union, who said that it was all right for a


Member of the House of Lords to be responsible for agriculture. With all due respect to the upper House, I believe that the man who speaks for Northern Ireland's agricultural interests should be in this House, so that elected representatives can deal with these issues.
I am not raising matters tonight in order of priority; some of the most important matters will come later. I will take matters as they appear in the order. Agriculture is in a state of suspense, as I am sure the Minister recognises. We do not know what will happen. We had a visit from the Commissioner, but I do not know whether anybody was much wiser after he left Northern Ireland. One point that I do know—I will repeat what I have said before in the House—is that politics is being played with agriculture in Europe. When politics comes into it, we cannot expect a fair deal for the farming community—certainly not for the Ulster farming community.
We all hear about small farms. Small farmers in Northern Ireland said, "We are going to be all right." Small farms in Europe are not 50 acres, 60 acres or 70 acres. They are pocket farms, some of only five acres, which grow a few rubbishy tobacco weeds. They will be highly subsidised as a result of future changes. The money will go to them and not to people who make their sole living out of farming. We have a serious problem in Northern Ireland, because people are being forced to leave the land. When a nation's toilers on the soil are forced to leave, it is a bad omen. We must do something.
The Under-Secretary of State has come new to Northern Ireland, so he may not be conditioned by the general talk of the Northern Ireland Office, which, as we know, has a bad influence on Ministers. He has a fresh mind, and he will work with good staff in the Department of Agriculture. I had the privilege of being chairman of the agriculture committee, so I know the staff there.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be a fighter for Northern Irish farming in Europe. We need a fighter. The Labour Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Silkin, was a fighter for the farmers. They called him the thug of Europe. The Minister needs to be a thug to deal with some of the thugs in farming with whom we have to deal in Europe. I will add nothing to my comments, because I am keeping my eye on the clock. I know that the Minister belongs to a denomination to which I do not belong, and that it believes in short sermons. My congregation believes in a proper sermon. A sermonette makes Christianettes, but a sermon makes good Christians. I am not in the business of making Christianettes.
We expect the Minister to tell us something about progress on the difficult problem of fallen stock. It is not a problem that is isolated in Northern Ireland because it extends across the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is the sole Conservative Back Bencher here tonight, will also be interested in that problem.
I am sure that the Minister knows that we are approaching the time when the problem will reach its apex, so we need to hear something from the Minister. I am sure that my colleagues, on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Benches, are aware of the problem. I believe that I can speak even for those colleagues on the Opposition Benches who do not fly the same flag that I fly on 12 July. I trust that we shall have a positive response

from the Minister tonight. If he cannot tell us that he has the full answer, he can encourage us by convincing us that he is going in the right direction.
We are all worried about why the good chairman of the electricity board resigned. We all wonder what is happening. He has always been a friend of Northern Ireland. He is a man in whom I have the utmost confidence, and I shall be glad to hear the Minister's response on that problem. Can the Minister give me some idea tonight about what will happen on Rathlin island? The chairman was a good supporter of the Rathlin islanders. He met us and helped us, and I trust that his passing does not mean that the Government will write an obituary on the prospect of getting light and heat to the people of Rathlin island.
It is no use having back-up health and social services if we do not have the foundations—the hospitals that are needed. If the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have something to say about Moyle hospital. I want to record my support for the campaign which has been waged for that hospital in Larne, which has the support of all right-thinking people in the area. We thank the hon. Member for Leicester, South for putting his weight behind that campaign.
I want to raise a matter that affects my area and which also impinges on the area of the person who was forgotten —the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South did not mean to leave him out, even though he has crossed swords with him quite often.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I apologise to the House for the omission.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his apology has been received in the good spirit in which it has been given.
Other areas are having new hospitals. Indeed, some areas are having two new hospitals. The area that I represent has been bereft of all investment in new hospitals. What have we? A building in the area was to have a facelift. The hospital was built in 1861. It would take some cosmetics to give it a facelift. Would anyone bother to give a facelift to a woman of 25?

Mr. Peter Robinson: Speak for the women of your own acquaintance.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the ladies of my own company would agree that if they started with the powder and paint after only 25 years, they would not do too well. Even a bachelor like my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) agrees with that. I see that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is in full agreement with that. In 1841——

Rev. William McCrea: Sixty-one?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No 1841–1641 was when all the Protestants were murdered and put into the Bann. It must be on my hon. Friend's mind. I know a little about history.
The Minister should think of what the wise man, the noble Lord who was responsible in another place, but who lost his job, said about Coleraine hospital—that it was a "shambles". Yet it has been suggested that it should be given a facelift. Both Ballymoney hospital, which was opened in 1841, and the Coleraine hospital, which is part


of the same hospital area and was opened in 1861, were workhouses. They remain open as hospitals, with a lot of nissen huts around them. It is a disgrace. [Interruption.]
I see that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) is getting a little impatient. He will just have to wait. He is not in the Newtownabbey council now. He is in the House of Commons and he will have to wait and remember that we are fighting in a life and death struggle to get proper hospitalisation for our people. Moyle council is a strange conglomerate, made up of independents, people who call themselves independent nationalists and others. They have all come together to say that we need this hospital, along with Ballymoney and Coleraine council. They all say that the time has come.
If I went through the history of what has happened, I am sure that the House would be amazed. There has been nothing but report after report and expenditure after expenditure on this hospital area. What has happened? Nothing. The final report, which I have here, has proved conclusively that the only viable way forward is a new building on a new site.
I must warn the Minister, because it worried me when he told our lobby that the new board would have to make a decision on this matter. The present board will be meeting at the end of the month to make a decision, and I trust that the Minister will tell the new board to carry out that decision. We do not want the matter to be reconsidered, and I do not believe that statutorily it should be. I believe that the law says that the board should make the decision. I know that the Minister can say, quite rightly that he cannot make a decision until he has had the board's decision—if I were in his place, I would say that. I accept that, but when he has the board's decision we want him to move as quickly as possible.
I remind the Minister that the Public Accounts Committee said that there was too great a delay in building hospitals. If he goes by the Committee's guidelines, they will forward the work. I shall not read the guidelines, because I do not want my colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, South to worry any more. He might have a heart attack, and then he would need hospitalisation.
If the Minister does not have this report, I shall gladly give him a free copy with my compliments, so that he can move forward as quickly as possible.
I am not doing too badly: 16 minutes is just up and I am coming near to the end of my speech.

Mr. Trimble: It has been over 20 minutes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, it has not been over 20. The hon. Gentleman is misreading the clock. His glasses are not clean.
There was a serious flood in the Ballycastle area. At first, when the Minister came to visit us, he told us that we would get nothing. That Minister is no longer with us. I am grateful that the Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry—I must give honour where honour is due—showed the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), Mr. Nicholson and my other two colleagues how we could get money. The Government took that route, and Ballycastle got the money.
I am not being churlish, but I noticed that the statement did not pay any tribute to what the MEP did. That went down the river. However, the Government paid tribute to

themselves for getting the money. I do not care about compliments. I am happy as long as I get the money for people in the Ballycastle area.
I am glad that we got that money for those farmers, but all the other people who suffered got nothing—not a penny. The Government have written to tell me that they do not think that they will give any money. I have here a list of people who have lost. One man has lost £3,658·74; another has lost £3,891; another has lost £3,900; and a lady has lost £4,973. I could go right down this list. I have sent it to the Secretary of State, who has all the facts before him.
Those people have been told that they will not get one penny to pay for damage to their houses. Some of them were insured and the insurance companies are paying out, although they could have said that the flood was an act of God and that they would not pay. However, there will be a serious gap.
What has the Department of Health and Social Services done? The Department has already offered people on supplementary benefit a £500 loan, but it has told them that they will have to pay it back. These decent people have said that they are not in a position to pay anything, so they have not asked for a loan.
I went to one of the homes affected—I shall not mention any names—and asked whether anyone from the Northern Ireland Office had been to visit them. They answered, "Yes." I said, "What did they ask?" They told me that the Office had asked them to send a full list of all their losses. I asked whether the Office had made any promises about paying and was told, "No, not in so many words."
Will the Minister seek some payment for these people —especially those on supplementary benefit, who are unable to raise money to refurbish their houses—to carry them over and to bridge the gulf?

Rev. William McCrea: Will my hon. Friend refresh the Minister's memory? In recent times, there were floods in Omagh and Strabane, when people faced similar problems. Perhaps the Minister would give due consideration to repayments to those people too.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I urge the Minister to do so. I know that his colleagues will tell him that we are seriously worried about these matters.
I do not want to delay the House or to prevent other colleagues from speaking, although I doubt whether they will take up all the time that they have at their disposal. Nevertheless, we shall give them the opportunity to do so.
We have heard a little about culture tonight. We have also heard something about money. I should like to think that, when money is given, it would be for wholesome, clean and edifying culture. I am alarmed at what has happened recently in Newtownabbey, when a film was shown which is a blashemous and scurrilous attack upon the purity and sinfulness of the son of God.
To depict Him in a sexual fantasy as he dies for our redemption on the cross is repugnant to all right-thinking people in our Province.
I am aghast that the Arts Council should stoop so low as to sponsor this film festival and put advertisements in the local paper seeking to involve people who were not involved. It was said that Calor Gas was one of its sponsors of this film and it had to place an advertisement saying that it had not sponsored the film at all. It was said


that the mayor of Newtonabbey council was to be the special guest. Anybody who knows Councillor Fraser Agnew knows that of all people he would not be at such a festival. Of course the council did not sponsor the film. Those people were used as a cloak to make it appear that everything was respectable. We tried to get in touch with the vice-chancellor of the university, but he was away and nobody was in charge.
Government money to promote community relations should be spent on wholesome things that edify the mind and do not cause moral and religious insults to large sectons of the community. I hope that I carry the Minister with me on that. When such things are done, we should know about them and know all the facts. There should be no cover-up, lying or cheating about the matter, as was done in this instance.
I hope that the Minister will look carefully at what is happening to disabled people in Housing Executive property. The disabled should have the facilities they need. I have some cases with the Housing Executive in which a firm promise was made that, because of disablement, a downstairs toilet and downstairs bedroom accommoda-tion would be provided. The people were then told by the executive that it was short of money and that such facilities could not now he provided. The matter is now on the long finger. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I note that some other Northern Ireland Members agree with me.
Such a matter is trying and serious. It is a big enough disaster to have a handicapped child in the home. Nobody knows the pressures on a parent or on a family, and I speak from pastoral experience. People are promised that proper accommodation will bring about an easement and their hopes are built up, only to be shattered. The Minister should have a look at that with the Housing Executive. In its care of the disabled and in its help for those families with disablement in their midst, the executive should be an example to all housing authorities.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) spoke about Northern Ireland Electricity. The Minister suggested that it will be privatised by Order in Council rather than by a Bill. Such a change in energy supply is fundamental. It affects everyone in the Province, from the newly born to the most senior citizen. To suggest that it should be taken through the House by Order in Council, a procedure with which no Northern Ireland Member agrees and which means that we cannot have full debate or table amendments to alter the proposal in any way, is almost beyond belief.
Many things about electricity privatisation need to be debated. We need to decide whether to split generation and distribution. It is not good enough simply to suggest a change from a public monopoly to a private monopoly. I am shocked by the Minister's suggestion of an Order in Council.
It is serious that the chairman of Northern Ireland Electricity should have stepped down at this stage. One wonders about the reason for his decision. Will the Minister reconsider this matter, which is of fundamental importance to the people of Northern Ireland? The principle has never been debated and the matter should be encompassed in a Bill.
I wish to deal with a problem regarding British Airways. The tourist industry has become smaller and there are fewer flights. The recent difficulties of Air Europe have left people overseas unable to get home. British Airways has served Northern Ireland well. It has operated from there for many years, while other companies have come and gone. We have great sympathy for that airline. However, we are disappointed that British Airways is to cut jobs in Northern Ireland. We had hoped that cuts would take place at the centre rather than on the periphery and that costs would be cut at Heathrow or elsewhere on the mainland.
We have spoken to British Airways officials in Northern Ireland and have been reassured that there will be no change in the security operation there. Security will be as tight and as good as it has always been at Aldergrove international airport, which is in my constituency. Security at Aldergrove is second to none and is an example to airports in other parts of the world.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Although I agree with the thrust and tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech, before he heaps too much praise on British Airways, does he agree that many of us who have been coming to the House for many years know that British Airways was doing next to nothing for travellers coming to London until British Midland came on the scene and made British Airways pull up its socks?

Mr. Forsythe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I was making the point that as there has been press comment on the subject, it would be most unfortunate if the travelling public came to believe that there will be a fall in security standards among any of the operators whose aircraft leave from Belfast for other parts of the world. We should be reassured by British Airway's pledge that its security will be as good as it has ever been. I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's other remark, but I support the concept of competition in the travel industry.
I recently asked in a parliamentary question how many estates in my constituency that had been completed for at least 12 months had roads or footpaths that remain unadopted. The Minister replied that four Northern Ireland Housing Executive developments fell into that category, as well as about 40 private developments.
Every building contractor must lodge a bond when he starts to develop an estate, and the Department of the Environment has the power to use that money to complete unadopted roads or footpaths at the developer's expense. I recently contacted the relevant Department about a small stretch of footpath on an estate in Ballyclare that has remained unadopted for 12 years, and was told that it would be dealt with, not this year, but in the next financial year—despite the fact that the DoE holds a bond for that work.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that people who move into an estate that continues to be developed for three years are expected to pay the full amount of the rates levied on their homes, when they can gain access to them only be wearing heavy, waterproof winter boots? Their carpeting and homes are continually made filthy as their children run in and out, because the roads and footpaths outside have not been made up, and do not have even a rough, basic foundation of tarmac. The Government and Northern


Ireland Ministers should take action to ensure that new home owners are not subjected to that nuisance for such a long period.

Mr. Forsythe: I cannot but agree with my hon. Friend. On certain estates, builders do not complete two or three houses for various reasons, and the plots concerned are turned into dumps, to which people will travel for miles to dispose of their rubbish. Because a developer has not completed an estate, and cannot be made to do so, those who already occupy properties on it find that the value of their homes is falling—even though the rating valuation office does not agree. I hope that the Minister will examine that aspect, too.
In another parliamentary question, I asked how many planning enforcements there have been in my constituency over the past few years. The Minister replied that there were two in 1987, four in 1988, and five in 1989. In 10 cases giving rise to problems of which I am aware, the Department is not enforcing planning conditions in five of them—and in the other five, there are difficulties because the Department is trying to do so. By a strange coincidence, most of the cases that the Department is trying to enforce involve individuals, whereas those that it seems incapable of enforcing involve large firms that are capable of taking on the Department, which is farcical. I understand that new proposals are contained in a planning order that will come before the House, but there is little point in introducing legislation if the Department will not enforce it.
It has been suggested that there will be administrative changes to the Royal Mail service in Northern Ireland, and that it will not be operated as independently as it is now. One can understand the Royal Mail wanting to make improvements, but I hope that those concerned will remember that Northern Ireland is unique in many ways and that it faces special difficulties that are not experienced in the rest of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, it is essential that Northern Ireland retains local control of its postal services, while trying to effect general economies of the sort that the Royal Mail wants to see made.
As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall end there.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: It is appropriate that the first part of the order deals with agriculture, because agriculture forms Northern Ireland's economic and social backbone. Agriculture sustains not just wealth and job creation, but the fabric of our community. I was interested to hear the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), when he spoke of the crisis confronting Northern Ireland's farming community vis-a-vis the fortunes of other participants in the European Community's grant aid programme.
There is currently an income crisis in Northern Ireland's agricultural industry, brought about by a substantial increase in production costs at a time when net profits have been substantially reduced. That situation has been aided and abetted by the peripheral situation in which the industry finds itself in respect of its markets and imports.
The problems are so acute as to justify a departure from the Government's general strategy at Brussels. If Northern Ireland is to sustain the fabric of not only its agricultural

industry but rural society, it is important that it should now be treated as a very special region. At a time when there is so much talk about rural regeneration it should be realised that a rural community cannot be regenerated if its livelihood is destroyed.
Much has been said about the produce of the land; let me say something about the produce of the sea. The fishing industry is especially important to my constituency and I am particularly interested in the harbour development in Ardglass and the hoped-for development in Kilkeel. I was surprised and disappointed to hear the Minister say that there had been a delay in the harbour works owing to a lack of uptake of the available resources. As he knows, Ardglass harbour has experienced no major capital improvement for many years. His predecessor approved expenditure of £1·4 million last year, but a continuing study has identified a larger figure—approximately £2 million. I should like the Government to provide that money as soon as possible.

Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, it was necessary to re-examine the design of the sea wall. That is what caused the delay. He will be pleased to learn that the development is now at tender stage.

Mr. McGrady: That is welcome news, which will give heart to the fishermen of Ardglass. They were very nervous about the prospect of facing another winter in such bad conditions. Kilkeel has similar difficulties, and a programme is needed to safeguard the increased number of vessels that are berthing there.
The Department of Health and Social Security should look particularly at the problems faced by fishermen out of season, or in bad weather, when they cannot generate the income that is needed to sustain themselves and their families, and often cannot obtain sufficient benefit to top up that insufficient income. I know that the Department was considering their difficulties not so long ago, and I hope that its considerations will bear fruit soon.
I want to deal next with votes 1 and 2, in respect of the Department of Economic Development. I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that—against the tide, as it were —there have been many success stories in relation to industrial development; unfortunately, my constituency cannot boast a share in that alleged prosperity. As the records show, in three years the invitees of the Industrial Development Board made only 10 visits to the entire districts of Down, Banbridge—with the permission of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—and Mourne. That does not constitute a fair or adequate attempt to distribute the wealth represented by inward investment to areas that have suffered such deprivations.
A terrible plight now afflicts the yarn spinners of South Down, especially those employed by Castlewellan Yarns and Killyleagh Yarns, which are experiencing a very difficult period. One of those firms proposes a virtual closedown in June 1991. Only a short time ago, the IDB proferred some £6 million for the complete rebuilding of a factory in Castlewellan, and the equipping of that factory with the most up-to-date machinery. The employees were told then, and have been told recently, that the order books were full; if that is true, why the rundowns and closures? The position merits investigation at the highest level.
Vote 2—and possibly vote 3; my copy of the document jumps from vote 2 to vote 4, and I assume that all the other


copies do the same—deals with tourism, potentially the second biggest industry in Northern Ireland and the provider of hope for the future. The indicative plan published recently by the Northern Ireland tourist board is imaginative, but requires urgent, indeed instant, implementation, backed up by a positive attitude—and funds—from the Department of Economic Development.
I have always been surprised by the failure of the board to draw on the enormous potential of the Mourne and St. Patrick's country area, which has such emotive associations not only for the North American continent —to which we look for tourist development—but for Europe, many of whose cities have direct ties with the area because of the founding fathers who did their missionary work there. That connection should be pursued: European tourism is every bit as good as, and perhaps more reliable than North American tourism. The tourist board should produce a comprehensive plan, akin to the plan that has existed for years for Fermanagh lakes and the north Antrim coast, to tap that hitherto untapped source.
We cannot, however, achieve anything in that regard without a positive attitude to the provision of low-cost accommodation. The Minister must reconsider the attitude of the planning departments in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and so forth. If he examines the topography of South Down, or consults a map, he will find that there is nowhere else where accommodation can be built; while the position is sensitive, that accommodation should and must be made available.
Rural planning—or, rather, rural regeneration—seems to be the flavour of the year. The interdepartmental committee, now headed by the Department of Agriculture, has a report ready, while the Housing Executive has a report prepared on the regeneration of housing in the countryside. All that will come to naught, however, if the planning departments have not the drive, energy and foresight to adopt a creative attitude. In our debate last year, I asked the Minister to examine the project for Seaconnell, which is in the North of the South Down area, and epitomises what can and should be done to regenerate the countryside.
I shall touch briefly on vote 1, on housing. From the report of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the statistics contained in it, it appeared that the new build programme is inadequate, irrespective of arguments to the contrary. New houses are being built where they are not needed, rather than where they are needed. Recent legislation on homelessness has created a further demand for resources by the Housing Executive which has not been met; certainly the Housing Executive has not been able to respond sympathetically to those who come to its offices complaining that they have no homes. Most are sent away without advice or sustenance.
I welcome the Housing Executive's fine new study on rural housing. It is only at the consultative stage. I hope that the Minister will encourage the Housing Executive quickly to come to terms with its report and prepare policy programmes for implementation.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on their campaigns in respect of the Larne and Coleraine hospitals. I attended a meeting at Downpatrick in 1966 that was chaired by the then health Minister, Bill Morgan. He promised a new hospital for Downpatrick. Perhaps, 30 years later, that will come to fruition. We are not asking

for a multi-million pound hospital. I ask the Minister to ensure that the Department does not say that that is a board responsibility, while the board says that it is the Department's responsibility.
The standard of health in Northern Ireland is a ministerial and departmental responsibility. The boards do not have the money; they can obtain it only from the Department. I ask it to provide us with the £10 million to £14 million for the new hospital. It is only a small amount. The programme is already two thirds accomplished, with the completion of the geriatric unit and the maternity hospital. It would be a pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar; £14 million is just that, if one considers the size of the Department of Health and Social Services budget.
We are faced with the threatened closure of many small rural schools in South Down. Unnecessary pressure is being exerted on schools such as Ballyclougan, a primary school in Saintfield. Both in the state and maintained sectors closures are threatened. I understand that the Southern Board has made comprehensive plans to close many rural schools in the Mourne mountains area of South Down. There is no point in a rural regeneration programme, under which all the Departments attempt to tackle rural degradation, unless the focal points of communities are retained—the school, the church, the village shop and the pub. Unless rural schools are retained, families will move away from the countryside and the efforts of all the other Departments will never bring them back.
It is inexplicable that the Department has no museums policy, other than that for the national museum. The argument is that because there is no museums policy, no budget is required. I ask the Minister to adopt a comprehensive policy for museums.
The Under-Secretary of State is now responsible for social security. It is difficult for families in need to satisfy the Department that they qualify for family credit. They have difficulty with the forms and with answering the many departmental questionnaires. I ask the Minister to draw on his professional experience as an accountant and himself to inquire how people in his Department can ask so many silly questions. How can he expect the people, in his Department who do not know the difference between capital and income, between expenditure and receipts to deal with these issues? They should try to get down to basics and provide aid for those who so obviously need it, by the very reason that they have applied for it.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I intend to make only a few points arising out of the appropriation order so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate.
Much has been said about hospitals in other parts of Northern Ireland. I intend to refer to the hospitals in North Down. I repeat the demand that I have made many times before for a new hospital for the whole area of North Down, which includes not only the Bangor area but also Newtownards and the Ards peninsula. I am, however, a realist. It may be some time before that hospital is built. We may have to wait for the restoration of a devolved Parliament in Stormont before that decision is made. Pending the building of that hospital, plenty of money will need to be spent on the existing hospitals in Newtownards and Bangor.
The people of Bangor want their hospital to remain a general hospital. Some beds in Bangor hospital were closed recently by the Eastern health board. Those closures were described by the board as temporary, but I believe that it is part of a process that has been going for a considerable time. Bed closures result in a reduction in the number of doctors and nurses in a hospital. The board seems intent on running down Bangor hospital so that it is no longer viable as a general hospital but becomes merely a geriatric hospital. The people of Bangor, through me, protest at that possibility. My demand is that Bangor hospital should be brought up to standard as a modern general hospital which can provide medical services for nearly 100,000 people. The hospital serves a wide area and the number of people in that area who have reached retirement age continues to grow.
The North Down Volunteer Bureau is a limited company and a registered charity which provides volunteering opportunities for unemployed people and a range of community care services in the area. It is one of a number of groups which receive funds from the training and employment agency through the community volunteering scheme. It has recently been informed that the scheme's budget for 1991–92 for the whole of Northern Ireland has been reduced from £854,000 to £600,000. That considerable reduction in financial help will have an adverse effect on the scheme, which provides such a useful service to the entire community in Northern Ireland.
The community volunteering scheme provides volunteering opportunities for unemployed men and women between the ages of 18 and 64. It enrols suitable candidates to work for the good of the community. It restores self-confidence and a sense of achievement to unemployed people who are accepted by the scheme. It provides valuable training and supervision. It enables young people to decide whether they wish to pursue a career in social work. Above all, the scheme fosters community spirit and strengthens communities.
The trained volunteers make home and hospital visits and provide transport and other practical help, wherever possible, for senior citizens and for chronically ill and mentally and physically handicapped persons. In addition, they are involved in working with children and providing support for one-parent families. It is a worthwhile charitable organisation. The decision to reduce the funding available to it means, in the case of the North Down Volunteer Bureau, a reduction from £57,000 to £24,000 in the coming financial year. That hefty reduction in funding will have major repercussions on the community care work of that charitable organisation. I urge the Minister to review that decision, so that its valuable work can continue.
I can vouch for the needs of the elderly, who are trying to survive on a pension which does not adequately cover food, clothing and heating costs. They deserve to be able to live out their retirement years in dignity and comfort. The Government do not appreciate that senior citizens in Northern Ireland experience difficulty because the cost of living in the Province is far higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Electricity costs are much higher, and some pensioners' homes are heated only by electricity. During the extremely cold period, I visited pensioners who were burning only one bar of an electric fire because they

could not afford to burn two. Inadequate heating of their homes, and of their bedrooms in particular, is not good for their health. I urge the Government to consider their plight.
I urge the Government to ensure also that all pensioners are provided with concessionary television licences. The present anomalies are a denial of natural justice and are ridiculous in their application. All pensioners living alone or with other pensioners should be eligible for a concessionary television licence.
I tabled a parliamentary question urging the Government to establish an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Environment in its excellent report on Northern Ireland. Such an agency is urgently needed in the Province, where there have been many instances of environmental damage. It is vital to contend with the all too powerful influence of developers and speculators, who are interested only in fat profits and have no sympathy for the environment.
I have advocated many times a change in the law to enable an objector to a planning application to pursue an appeal to the planning appeals Commission. The law favours the developer or speculator, who can take his application to apeal if it is refused. Many times, local residents have satisfied the planning department that an application would be detrimental to their area, but subsequently it has been allowed on appeal by the planning appeals Commission.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to speak shortly. I am trying to allow other hon. Members the chance to speak.
Confidence in the planning process must be restored. That will be achieved only by ensuring that the Department of the Environment is seen as capable of defending the public interest and safeguarding the environment. The Department may have to employ more people in its planning office. The planning office in Downpatrick has more work than its officials can contend with.
Bregenz house continues to be built on Bangor sea front without full planning permission. That is offensive to those who respect the laws and expect others to respect them. Why has no stop notice been issued? Will one be issued shortly? The Minister responsible for the planning section of the Department of the Environment arranged for one of his officials to discuss the matter with me, and I met him on Friday afternoon with representatives of other aspects of life in Bangor. I urge the Minister, who is seized of the planning application for Bregenz house—it is no longer a matter for Downpatrick planning office, but for the Minister—to meet some of the people of Bangor, who are anxious that the structure should be removed. That was set out clearly in a petition that I presented to the House on behalf of more than 5,500 people. Thousands more people would have signed it but for the fact that it had to be rushed in before planning permission was granted.
I congratulate members of the Dundonald Green Belt Association for their energetic work in safeguarding the environment. They deserve the congratulations and commendation of the people of Dundonald and elsewhere. They made representations to the Minister, who met some of them in January. Sadly, however, they have seen the


radical alteration of the Dundonald area, where green hills, fields trees and hedges are being replaced by more and more houses densely packed into a number of developments.
I join the Dundonald Green Belt Association in recommending to the Government the suspension of the proposed 1993 Belfast urban area plan land release, and a review of the necessity of releasing the full acreage. Some of the land earmarked for housing under the urban plan should be returned to the green belt area. Something must be done to preserve the rural aspect of Dundonald. It is imperative that a local area plan be produced for Dundonald, which is a distinct entity.
The Minister stated that a local plan was never envisaged by the Department of the Environment,
as it is considered that the village and its environment are adequately covered in the Belfast urban area plan 2001.
But that is not true. No attempt has been made to plan for the expanding population of the area or for new and larger schools and proper recreation facilities. Plans must be prepared urgently. I am thinking in particular of the people of Ballybeen, who lack the facilities which would make that large housing estate more agreeable and acceptable to its inhabitants. More must be done for the young people of the area, who need such facilities.
Tullycarnet housing estate is another large housing estate which lacks soul. The Government must spend money on it to bring it up to standard and to ensure that its people have proper facilities and that its young people have recreational facilities which will keep them usefully employed and out of the hands of the police. I urge the Government carefully to consider Tullycarnet and Ballybeen to see what can be done.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the extra provision in vote I to the Department of the Environment for the road casualty reduction unit.
Since 1980, there have been 328 accidents on the Larne-Belfast road. One hundred and thirty-five people have been seriously injured and 20 people have lost their lives. Eighteen of those 20 deaths have occurred since 1985. A nephew of mine was one of those killed, and I have known many of the others personally, so I know the sorrow and loss of such a tragedy to the families involved.
The Larne-Belfast road serves the port of Larne, which is now the second busiest port in the United Kingdom and the busiest port in Northern Ireland. Between 8,000 and 14,000 vehicles use the road every day, yet 15 km remains single carriageway and only 5·5 km is dual carriageway. The Department of the Environment may argue that the dual carriageway is where the flow of traffic is heaviest, which may be true, but 14,000 vehicles must come from somewhere to reach the small piece of dual carriageway. Most get there after 15 km of inadequate single carriageway.
The road has not undergone any substantial reconstruction since the 1960s, when the number of passenger cars using the port was fewer than 100,000 a year. Now, the number of passenger cars travelling to and from the port stands at 350,000 a year. More than 800 cars and vans use the road to the port every day, as do an enormous number of articulated lorries, coaches and buses —about a further 350,000 a year. In the summer months, the level of passenger vehicles using the road to the harbour increases further. Car or van-accompanied travel

continues to increase. It is predicted that the number of articulated vehicles will increase. More than 95 per cent. of Northern Ireland tourist car and passenger traffic travels by Larne, and therefore must use the Larne-Belfast road, which has been so neglected.
Larne harbour is an extremely modern ferry terminal, with shops, buffet lounges, commercial driver lounges, foreign currency exchanges, car hire facilities and a tourist information desk. We have everything that the visitor could want, except good roads to and from the port.
Larne Harbour Ltd. has ample land for further development. We all welcome the recent announcement that about 70 acres at Redlands will be further developed for warehousing, distribution, commercial and service facilities, and possibly a hotel development. A large area of land is leased to Larne Harbour at the harbour. One has no disagreement with that whatever—it is accepted—but before that land is transferred outright by the Industrial Development Board to Larne Harbour, the IDB should seek from Lame Harbour the equivalent in land to the value of that valuable site at the Redlands estate.
Although the company may plan to encourage further development of that site, the restrictions which it may impose on developers will be less attractive than the conditions that the IDB may offer developers. It is important that we see that development, and even more important that we see continued progress and develop-ment of the Larne-Belfast road.
We must bear in mind the growing numbers of visitors to the area. Last year, the port handled 1·6 million passengers, most of whom used the Larne-Belfast road. But the lack of development and of improvement of the road has definitely contributed to many serious accidents and to some of the deaths. Recently, a young woman—an only child and a constituent of mine—was killed on the road when flooding from nearby fields on the single carriageway resulted in her crashing into oncoming traffic. That might not have happened had the road been dual carriageway.
Many of the accidents on the road involve articulated lorries. It makes no difference whether drivers on the road are local, and know it, or are strangers. The road is not safe, and it will not be safe or able to cope with the increasing volume of traffic until there is major reconstruction and upgrading.
I hope that the Minister can tell the House tonight that never again will the road service of the DOE and policemen from Ballyclare have to sandbag the roadway to prevent water from flooding on to it off the fields. I hope that the report paid for by Larne borough council and by local industry recommending upgrading of the road will be taken seriously.
We heard earlier about the imbalance of funding as between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Because of the additional money available to the republic, it has planned all sorts of grandiose road schemes for routes from Dublin towards Northern Ireland and to the republic's ports. We in Northern Ireland, however, cannot obtain the financial support from the Northern Ireland Office, the Government or from Europe to ensure that the Larne-Belfast road is fit to cope with the growing volume of traffic on it. I hope that the Minister will have some good news to give us.
Under DHSS vote 1, table 3, I am sure that the Minister will have noted the considerable increase in funding that will be needed to complete Antrim hospital. Last year it


seemed that about £30 million would be needed; now it appears that £50 million will be needed. In Larne, we have an acute hospital that meets our needs. It is well staffed. Regional specialties are available for those who need them in Belfast, but 95 per cent. of patients receive the services they require in our local hospital. Proposals to transfer acute services from Moyle hospital have been rejected by elected representatives, by GPs and by the vast majority of people served by that hospital. The proposed scheme for the future of Moyle hospital is not accepted by the people it serves.
We feel that the consultation to date has been a total charade. The wishes of the local people have been ignored at the expense of the opinions of unelected persons serving on the boards, mainly ministerial nominees or perhaps consultants who have a special interest in the new Antrim hospital, because they perceive that it will offer them greater career opportunities. Those people are supporting and promoting Antrim hospital at the expense of Moyle hospital in Larne.
If a proper study was carried out and services between the northern and eastern boards were rationalised, savings in public expenditure would accrue and there could be a genuine reconsideration of the proposals for the future of Moyle hospital. I appeal to the Minister to support the retention of acute services at Moyle hospital until a full, impartial options appraisal is instituted by the Northern Health and Social Services Board and the Northern Ireland Office. We have made strenuous efforts to produce a convincing report, but we are not satisfied that it has been given proper consideration.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and others have expressed concern about future employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. If one adds to the threat of a decline in job prospects the high birth rate in Northern Ireland, one sees that the situation can only get worse. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to the difficulties experienced by a yarn-spinning company in his constituency. Such problems occur because there is no proper integrated plan that involves the spinning, weaving, finishing and manufacturing of textiles in Northern Ireland—if there was, it might help.
There are many other issues that I want to address—for example, the quibble that has arisen about Department of Economic Development, vote 5. What advice has the Minister had from his consultants on the privatisation of Northern Ireland's electricity board? When are we going to know whether there will be any advantage from a privatised, profit-motivated electricity monopoly over the present, public-owned monopoly of electricity generation? Can the Minister tell us whether his consultants have advised him on the future of gas generation in Northern Ireland?
We have waited a long time to hear news of the interconnector. We are still waiting for an announcement on phase 2 at Kilroot. Not only are domestic consumers in Northern Ireland purchasing the most expensive electricity in the United Kingdom, but our industry is being decimated by the high costs that it must pay. It is vital that some action is taken. Sadly, many sites that would be suitable for hydro-electric generation, although perhaps only small amounts of it, have not been exploited. I hope

that the Minister will encourage those who can do so to obtain a fair price for hydro-generated electricity and recoup the high capital cost of installing hydro-generators.
In the funds voted for education in vote 1, there is no provision for nursery education. It is deplorable that we have such a low level of provision of nursery schools in Northern Ireland as a whole. A gesture was made many years ago, but nothing has happened since then. However, if primary schools were permitted to use empty classrooms, the problem could be met to some extent.
Will the Minister bring us up to date on the position on subsidence from the salt mines in the Carrickfergus area, which is dealt with in vote 5? When is it likely that the roads that have had to be partially closed or whose use has been restricted because of subsidence will open again?
Although I could say more, I am conscious that many other hon. Members hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so I shall end there.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) twitted me about the problem of fallen stock. It is not a subject that is frequently raised in Wolverhampton, although as a farmer I understand a little about it. There are other problems frequently on the minds of people in Wolverhampton who, for 25 years, received a prolonged university course in the advantages of parliamentary sovereignty and the importance of retaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. People in Wolverhampton know that Northern Ireland is a constitutional slum and that poor Northern Ireland still retains the debris of previous mistakes.
On page 11 of the order, we see that £123,000 is being paid every year towards the maintenance of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is not possible for the English colonial masters and their loyal subordinates in the Northern Ireland Office to recognise that they have made a mistake, and so it is that each decade brings a new initiative from the Northern Ireland Office and those who temporarily happen to be in nominal control of it, aimed at bringing the benefits of legislative devolution to Northern Ireland.
At the beginning of the 1970s, Stormont was abolished. There was an attempt at rolling devolution by Lord Prior, as he has now become, which gave rise to the Assembly on which we still spend £123,000 a year. Now we have the third initiative for the 1990s—the so-called Brooke initiative. All of them failed or will fail. All attempt that which is impossible. Now, as the corpse of the Brooke initiative occasionally kicks in its death throes, the various parties to the death walk around it, each hoping to be able to blame another for the death. Sadly, the poor thing was always likely to die, and it is difficult to see who can be justly blamed for its death—other than perhaps its father, the present Secretary of State, who has been so unwise as to give his name to it.
As one listens to this debate, it becomes more and more obvious that the brave attempt of the Northern Ireland Office—admittedly, much stimulated by American influence—to bring legislative devolution to Northern Ireland has failed. Is it not now clear that it would be in the interests of Northern Ireland to move towards a system in


which the Province received some of the benefits of Westminster government that the rest of the United Kingdom enjoys?
I remember an occasion which would not have occurred but for the expenditure on the Northern Ireland Assembly. The right to silence in Northern Ireland was being reduced, and in some circumstances obliterated, by Order in Council. Some people say that the constitutional nationalists approve of the Order in Council procedure. I do not understand that. I remember the anger that I and my kinsman the late Ian Gow felt on the night to which I refer. That procedure was a gross affront to the civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland, particularly those who might be accused of so-called nationalist crimes —security crimes. The rights of those people were being taken away.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why someone might be accused because he was a nationalist?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must remind the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that we are not dealing with Northern Ireland Office matters. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's remarks relate to the Northern Ireland Office, as distinct from Northern Ireland Departments.

Mr. Budgen: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government persist in the Order in Council procedure because it is believed that we are about to have a new attempt at devolved government in Northern Ireland. The procedure is justified as being a temporary strategem. It has been demonstrated beyond peradventure that legislative devolution has failed. I therefore contend that it is unfair to Northern Ireland to persist in this highly defective system of altering people's rights by order in council.
With reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I perhaps expressed myself badly. No doubt, from time to time, charges relating to security crimes are based on bad evidence. People who are charged are entitled to proper safeguards. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh ought to have had an opportunity to argue against the special provisions by which the right to silence of people in Northern Ireland was reduced, but he was denied that right by the Order in Council procedure. That is a scandal and a disgrace.
In a debate such as this, many hon. Members speak about matters which in England would be the concern of local authorities—museums, housing and planning problems, and so on. In England, all such matters are dealt with in the first instance at local government level. It is surely a scandal that this so-called interim arrangement, which has gone on since the abolition of the Northern Ireland Parliament at the beginning of the 1970s, should be persisted in.
It is said that we now have the good fortune to have highly political leadership in the Conservative party. I hope that, rather than looking for future allies in the centre of the political spectrum, and rather than flirting with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and his two outriders from London, the Government will accept our suggestions for measures to improve the government of Northern Ireland, which will be recognised justifiably as improvements and may attract the support of our old friends and allies in the Ulster Unionist party

along with others, perhaps, in other parties within the Unionist family. That is the course towards which honour, intellect and interest should drive the Conservative party in the next few months.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: We are debating supplementary estimates, but we must consider public expenditure as a whole in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) struck a chord with me when he talked about the way in which Northern Ireland is administered and the lack of consultation that ensues.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Under-Secretary of State, is in his place on the Government Front Bench. He has done reasonably well so far with consultation. He has still, of course, to produce results on many of the issues on which he has consulted. I acknowledge, however, that he was not long in his comparatively new responsibilities for health in Northern Ireland before we had new twin theatres at the South Tyrone hospital in Dungannon. There are many in South and East Tyrone, right through into the Mid-Ulster area, who appreciate the speed with which the Minister brought that project to fruition. There had been many delays before the hon. Gentleman's appointment.
The Minister has many other difficult issues to resolve. I had hoped to see nurses' regrading dealt with in the supplementary estimates. The Minister knows that I have communicated with him on the matter and that I am not satisfied with his interpretation of it. The Government said when the regrading process was undertaken that they would underwrite the cost. They underwrote the cost of phase 1, but they have not provided the money for the subsequent three appeal phases.
We have heard about the ball being bounced back and forth between the Department and the boards, but the boards are extensions of the Department. Board officers had knowledge of and responsibility for the regrading. There is therefore direct responsibility in the Department to underwrite the decisions that were made. Unfortunately, it has failed to do so. In the area that comes within the southern board, there is a shortfall of about £700,000. In the western board area, it is about £300,000. I do not have the figures for the other two boards, but I imagine that they are sizeable.
The Minister must decide whether there is to be a reduction in services to the consumer so that the proper commitment to the nursing profession is met within existing resources. Alternatively, he must recognise the Department's responsibility, as devolved through to the boards, to fund fully the initial payments for upgrading and the subsequent financial requirements following the appeals.
The way in which the boards, which will operate until the end of this month, are replaced by boards that will be even more tightly aligned with the Department—their members will not include elected members of local government—worries many of us. We regard it as a diminution of the democratic process. The Minister has an opportunity to do something about it, but he must act urgently and tell us when the health and social services councils will be set up. They should already be in place, as should the boards. I have been speaking to chief executives


and officers of the various boards. They do not yet know who their new member will be, just a fortnight before they are meant to be in operation. There has been no handover.
Only in the past day or two have district councils been asked to consider nominating members from the district councils to the health and social services councils. Instead of a cohesive, continuous process, the system by which our health services are administered is broken off, there is a gap, and then it is picked up again. It should not happen in that way.
Other problems concern the cost of medicines and drugs, which is increasing more rapidly than inflation. Although the boards are funded according to the level of inflation, the funding is inadequate to meet the cost that they must bear for drugs and medicines, which is rising by somewhere between 14 and 16 per cent.
The boards must deal with other factors, not least uncertainty about the price of fuel oils for heating hospitals, which will require careful consideration by the Department if the boards' budgets are not to break down half or two thirds of the way through the financial year.
I concur with much of what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said about the environment. It appears to many of us that there is—dare I say it—chaos in various divisions within the Department of the Environment. The elected representatives, especially those who sit on district councils, are frustrated when, month after month, planners who come to our meetings heed not a word of the advice from those of us who are familiar with our areas and the problems.
I have tried not to be parochial so far, but my constituency has an aging population. What happens to a husband and wife who have worked all their lives on a small farm and reared a family, whose members have perhaps decided not to continue farming? Often, if they want to sell their property, they cannot persuade the planners that they are entitled to a rood on which to build a retirement bungalow. They are encouraged to leave their farms and to move to an adjacent town or further afield. It is wrong that people should be taken out of the community in their old age. I hope that the Minister responsible will soften his hard attitude towards planning. There are also difficulties when a member of a family wishes to continue farming and to build himself a modern home on the farm and allow his parents to continue to live in the existing homestead.
There is little understanding of the difficulties of a rural community. There may not be great wealth there, but, in our uncertain society, there is an opportunity to live a calm, peaceful and satisfying life. Having grown up in the country, having gone to a county primary school as a child and having taught as a principal in a small country school for many years, I regret the demise of our rural communities. The breakdown in communities, the closure of schools and churches and the disappearance of those small communities contribute to the unrest in Northern Ireland. If people are taken out of the country and put into a town where they have little in common with those already living there, their way of life, breaks down. All to often, over the past 20 years, children from those homes have become unstable and involved in anti-social activities. Something should be done.
I should like to deal with another matter, involving the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Agriculture, which must fall within the Under-Secretary's responsibilities—disposal of hazardous waste. We have talked to the hon. Gentleman about the disposal of fallen and diseased animals and I hope that he can tell us that some progress has been made. His Department has been working hard although, sadly, it is too late. Unfortunately, the Department of the Environment gave the impression at an early stage that there were innumerable sites where fallen animals could be disposed of. That information was inaccurate, and it took district councils some time to convince the Department how serious the problem was.
However, the issue is wider than that. The problem of the disposal of hazardous waste concerns all of industry and includes the disposal of clinical waste from hospitals. Far too many hospitals are—to coin a phrase—flying on a wing and a prayer with regard to their incineration capabilities. If we tighten the requirement to provide safe incineration of clinical waste—as I hope we shall—the facilities of many hospitals will be found wanting. I believe that the Departments have been far too slow to provoke full public debate on the issue. Unless we have that public debate, there will be a lot of fearmongering. I do not want to denigrate Greenpeace as I agree with much of what it does, but there are times when it is wholly irresponsible and there is already far too much scaremongering.
The NIMBY syndrome—"not in my backyard"— pervades the community when we talk about the incineration of toxic and hazardous waste. It is incumbent on the Department of Economic Development, on the Department of Health and Social Services and on other Departments to provoke constructive debate, so that we shall not face yet another crisis in five or 10 years. I look forward to funding for proper research and for the dissemination of information about that problem.
There are other issues with which I wished to deal, but I shall refer briefly to just one that especially disturbs me —the use of angel dust in cattle feed. The Departments must provide resourcs to deal with that. I am sad that the European Community dictated that hormones should not be permitted as growth promoters in cattle. The Americans, who are much more fastidious than the Europeans, still use hormones. The outcome of the ban on hormones in the European Community has been an escalation in the use of angel dust. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue.

Rev. William McCrea: By now, it is no doubt clear to the Minister that many problems press on the minds of hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The Minister is responsible for agriculture in the Province, so I am sure that he will realise that I come from a large agricultural constituency. I am sure that he will agree that the agricultural community has faced many challenges in recent years, especially with the advent of the quota system in milk and other products.
Many farmers in Northern Ireland still feel aggrieved that quotas have ensured the decline of the family farm. In Northern Ireland, the family farm was the backbone of our Ulster society, but many small farms are no longer financially viable. Can the Minister give any hope to the hard-pressed farming community? Will the farmer with


fewer than 40 cows receive any relaxation in the quota system to enable the farm unit to become viable? Neither I nor any other hon. Member in Northern Ireland can stand idly by and watch the decay in and the destruction of our vital farming in Northern Ireland, robbing the community of the lifeline of former prosperity.
I could understand the decay if the farming community wished to stand still and thus to stagnate, but that is not the case. The farming community is willing to play an active part in the future prosperity of the Province, as it has done in the past. What hope can the Minister offer the farming community that negotiations in Europe will secure a firm future for farming in Northern Ireland? A real dilemma surrounds agriculture, and some assurance and encouragement must be forthcoming from the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members have mentioned the problem of fallen and diseased animals. Can the Minister tell us what steps have been decided on by the Department? Week after week since the problem began, I have been inundated with calls from worried farmers, many of whom are at their wits' end, as I have mentioned to the Minister personally. Positive news from the Minister today would be most warmly welcomed.
This may be an appropriate time to ask the Minister if he will make representations to the Minister with responsibility for the environment to take steps to permit farmers' sons and daughters to stay in the countryside. Surely it is time for more sympathetic planning decisions on dwelling in the countryside. Great frustration and anger are felt by many who have lived in the countryside and who have contributed all their lives to the well-being of the countryside, only to find themselves and their families parcelled up by some civil servant and hounded out of the countryside and into the towns.
Before moving on to deal with some of the other Departments, I wish to make my voice heard on the problem of angel dust. We must have proper fines and proper action must be taken by the courts to ensure that those involved in such despicable practices do not gain financially compared with the rest of the farming community who desire to play their part properly. We must bear in mind the health and welfare of the people of the nation.
With regard to the Department of the Environment, can the Minister tell the House what progress is being made on the Omagh bypass? Phase 1 has been completed, but it is essential for phases 2 and 3 to get under way urgently.
The next matter directly affects the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). I, too, represent a constituency which includes part of the Magherafelt district council area. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East will be concerned about the Magherafelt bypass. I recently received a letter from the Minister about the bypass and it was not helpful. The letter explained that the Government did not intend to construct such a bypass at present, but that any relevant survey in the Magherafelt town area would surely show an urgent need for such a bypass.
Can the Minister inform the House about the date of completion of the Castledawson bypass? Its construction has a follow-on effect in my constituency for vehicles on their way to the M2 from Moneymore and Cookstown and

thus on industrial development. Is the construction of the Castledawson bypass on course and what is the expected completion date?
Is the Minister aware of the frustration experienced by Strabane district council because its efforts for economic development have—I quote from the clerk of the council —been "thwarted by poor state of the roads from Strabane to Omagh."
Surely an area of deprivation like Mid-Ulster deserves a better slice of the cake to ensure that local industrialists are able to compete in the wider challenge of the European market post-1992?
Staying with the Department of the Environment, will the Minister give the completion date of the Cookstown bypass? Bearing in mind the serious nature of affairs in Cookstown, due to security checkpoints there, every assistance must be given to alleviate a problem which is doubtless hindering the industrial development of the area. Cookstown has the second highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is imperative that the Cookstown bypass is put on course.
Phase 1 from the Moneymore road to the Old Coagh road has commenced and has been carried out under a minor works programme, costing less than £200,000. The eastern distributor A29, which is so vital to the industrial development of the Cookstown area, would cost about £1·5 million. Bearing in mind the fact that industrial sites are on the opposite side of the town, the eastern distributor is a must. Will the Minister ensure that we have good news about that for the people of the Cookstown area?
Staying with the vote for the Department of the Environment, will the Minister announce plans to permit local councillors to have a greater say in planning decisions? Does he understand the anger and frustration when so many Government officials only sparsely fulfil their obligations to consult district councils and, having done so, pay little attention to the representations made by local councillors about issues which are vital for their constituents? Does not the Department realise that elected representatives, who live in the community, have a genuine desire to protect it? It is not merely officials who have a desire to protect the community.
The present position as regards the famous quotation, "location, siting and design" is totally unacceptable. It is used by officials in the Department to cover a multitude of sins. If a civil servant is, for some reason, unwilling to grant approval, the cloak of "location, siting and design" is usually the fancy term used in the refusal.
Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed by many councillors at a recent conference in Omagh, County Tyrone, about planning the countryside? What is the official reaction of the Department to the representations made at that conference?
Staying with the Department of the Environment, and the Minister of State who opened the debate, I must tell the House that he has twice given wrong information about community relations at the Dispatch Box. He said that it was a unanimous decision of Magherafelt district council that a community relations officer would be employed. I listened on one of those occasions when he was speaking about Belfast city council and deriding it for not appointing a community relations officer.
The Minister derided in the House the Unionist councillors in Belfast for not appointing that officer. After that, I read an interesting article, which said that Conservatives on North Down council did not take up the


Minister's offer either and voted against such an appointment. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. It would surely be wrong for a Minister to deride Ulster Unionists and Democratic Unionist councillors for not taking up his offer if members of his own party did not do so.
The Minister gave wrong information. I and my colleagues on Magherafelt council did not vote for this position to be filled. It is disgraceful that I should be expected to vote along with Sinn Fein for a so-called community relations officer. The following week, those same councillors would not condemn the IRA bombing of the local labour exchange and the local UDR centre, which finally killed a man of 86 years of age. It is utter hypocrisy to suggest that we should vote in favour of a community relations officer who is seconded by Sinn Fein when that organisation has never taken a stand against the bombings and the killings in our community. I am glad to be able to put the record right because on two occasions the House was told that Magherafelt council, of which I am a member, voted unanimously in support of such an officer.
I shall now turn to economic development. As I have said, I have the honour to represent a constituency with a large agricultural community. However, it is a sad fact that there is a lack of industrial investment in Mid-Ulster. Few industrialists have been encouraged to come to my Constituency. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and I understand how he feels.
One of our problems in encouraging people to base industry in my constituency is the great lack of roads. We urgently need a proper roads network to encourage investment to this area of high unemployment. I have constantly brought to the attention of the House places such as Castlederg, a small town that has suffered more from terrorist activity than any other town of its size in the Province. What measures are in the Government's programme to bring real hope to those in Castlederg who have braved terrorism of the most vile nature?
Recent job losses in Sion Mills are causing great anxiety and exceptional and additional Government measures are necessary if the area is to be made prosperous. I listened with interest to the information that Northern Ireland would not suffer as much as the rest of the United Kingdom in terns of job losses and industrial depression. That will give no comfort to my constituency, although it may do to those who know little of unemployment. Those who live in an area that has suffered grievously from unemployment for I do not know how long feel that it has been left to decay, while many others have received substantial financial support.
Recently, the Government undertook an in-depth study of Castlederg, which was much appreciated. However, steps must be taken urgently to stop the decay. Now that the investigation has been completed, will the Minister say——

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

ESTIMATES

[1st ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd part]

MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), to put the deferred Question on Supplementary Estimates 1990–91 (Class VII Vote 3).

CLASS VII, VOTE 3

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £124,318,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991 for expenditure by the Department of Transport on support to nationalised transport industries and to ports; rebate of fuel duty to bus operators; and costs of drivers' testing and training.—

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of Estimates). and the Order (1 March).

ESTIMATES, 1990–91 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1991 a revised number not exceeding 66,800 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1992 a number not exceeding 66,550 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1992 a number not exceeding 171,060 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 4,955 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 117,000, for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 85,500 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 6,970 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1992 a number not exceeding 92,520 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 18,250 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,800 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1989–90

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £145,902,12200 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending 31st March 1990, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 168.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1990–91

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,544,032,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1991, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 170 and 232.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

ESTIMATES, 1991–92 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £520,002,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1992. as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 171.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing three resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.

Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1991 and 1992; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 79].

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) to continue his speech, I may tell the House that five other hon. Members wish to participate. The debate can continue until 11.30 pm, so if they each speak for about 10 minutes, they will all be called, and there will still be time for wind-up speeches from both Front Benches. I hope that those time limits will be broadly borne in mind.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the two minutes taken by the business at 10 o'clock be added to our debate?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is in the affirmative.

Rev. William McCrea: Can the Minister say what steps will be taken to action some of the proposals in the Castlederg programme, to stave off the decay that is affecting that area? My constituents are desirous to assist themselves, but the Government must offer added incentives.
Has the Minister heard of the Gibson plan for Mid-Tyrone, named after my friend and colleague Councillor Oliver Gibson, who had the vision and the initiative to compile a comprehensive scheme that identifies many of the needs in the area? I shall be obliged if the Minister will discuss it with the local council in the near future.
Given the existence of the beautiful Gortin glens and the Ulster-American folk park at Omagh, the Government should initiate a worldwide drive to help tourism in the area. We in Mid-Ulster have a willing work force, but it needs encouraging. Will the Government encourage with grant aid multinational firms to that area of high unemployment?
I pay tribute to the local industry that has mushroomed over the past few years; many concerns, however, have been strangled by high interest rates and inflation. Will the Minister encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist industry by introducing lower interest rates in the Budget?
How can Northern Ireland industry compete with that of other EC countries, given the exorbitant electricity costs that we must endure? We deplore the additional costs that have been forced on the Province. What action will the Minister take to remove this intolerable burden from my constituents?
What will the Minister do about the impending payoffs at Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital, which has been at the forefront of mental health care in the Province for many years and is now a vital employer in the Omagh area? Is he aware of the alarm and disquiet that is felt in that area? The nursing staff are gravely worried about the future of mental health care; their opinions must be taken into account. The senior officers have drawn up a hospital plan, but I should be deeply obliged to the Minister if he forwarded to me the detailed plan for community mental health care. Many of the changes are based on the development of community-based care: surely it is entirely unacceptable to wreck hospital care facilities without possessing detailed knowledge of community-based care.
The community is also concerned about the lack of home helps for the elderly who are forced to live in that community. Like other hon. Members, I wish to know when the Minister expects work to begin on the new Coleraine hospital. Has he read the comprehensive submission from those who are campaigning to save the Moyle hospital, for which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their support?
There is much concern in my constituency about the question mark over the future of one of our local schools, Tullyhogue primary school. The school is an essential part of the local community, and I ask the Minister and the Department of Education to ensure that it is saved.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: In the interests of brevity, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to abide by your directive.
The macro element of the debate seems to have been largely ignored in favour of the micro element. That may be a result of the Ribble Valley by-election, which has tended to focus all our attention on the more parochial issues. I shall follow suit; I will merely ask the questions, and request consideration of them.
First, the north of Ireland badly needs a noise pollution protection scheme. According to what I can glean from parliamentary questions and answers, there is no clearly defined arrangement to protect people's health in that regard, as there is in other parts of the United Kingdom. The figures interest me; there is, of course, a constituency element in my interest.
In England, a noise problem caused by a traffic scheme qualifies for legislation at 68 decibels; a noise problem caused by a military installation qualifies at 70 decibels. In Northern Ireland, the helicopter noise scheme run by the Minister of Defence qualifies at 72 decibels. In Canal street in Newry, in my constituency—one of the main streets, but a very narrow street—Newry and Mourne council has measured the noise level at between 74 and 77 decibels. Despite all my efforts, however, I have been unable to persuade the Department of the Environment to re-route the traffic from that street to a new bypass and an alternative route into Newry.
In the interests of health alone, I suggest that the Minister, who is responsible for the health of all of us in Northern Ireland, should join me in trying to persuade the Department of the Environment and those in charge of road traffic to abolish noise pollution in that street. Noise pollution is as dangerous as any other form of pollution.
As for the grants department of the Housing Executive for the southern area, there has been a problem in the Newry office, which is being resolved. The problem was caused not by those who have applied for Housing Executive grants but by the Housing Executive itself. The last people to suffer should be the people who live in the Newry and South Armagh areas. However, due to irregularities in that office, they have to wait an inordinate length of time. Only two or three grants are issued each month. That is unfair, and patently unjust, and it must be dealt with quickly. I have dealings with another grants office and have compared the speed with which grants are processed. One of the reasons for the slowness in processing grants is due to Housing Executive's problems.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to those with disabilities, and to the difficulty that they face if they want improvements to their homes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We all come up against that problem. Part of it relates to an insufficient number of occupational therapists to make the assessments. I have written to the Minister about the issue.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, even if we had enough occupational therapists, we do not have sufficient money to carry out the work that needs to be done after assessments have been made?

Mr. Mallon: That is a valid point, but money will certainly not be spent without an occupational therapist's report. Most areas want the number of occupational therapists to be increased, in the interests of the disabled.
I appreciate how valuable the small rural school is, having been taught in one, and having worked in another. The rural schools acts as a cohesive element in village communities. In rural areas, as Northern Ireland is, schools are small units. Both board and departmental decisions should bear that in mind. The Southern education and library board has decided to withdraw all school transport from children not of compulsory school age, who therefore have to leave school at about 2 pm.
One can imagine the effect of that on many schools struggling to retain their numbers and to remain open. Schools which have amalgamated have been hit the hardest. There have been closures due to insufficient numbers of teachers being available to supervise children; they also have to fulfil the new curriculum requirements. School transport is expensive, but it plays a vital part in keeping schools open.
A matter which concerns the Minister's Department recently came to my notice. I wrote to the Minister, but unfortunately the matter was referred to a departmental head, so I take this opportunity to draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention. Severe disablement allowance will not be paid to 23 disabled people who attend school in the Republic because of the requirement that they must be resident in the north of Ireland for 10 consecutive days. Those young people, who suffer from profound deafness, attend St. Joseph's school for the the deaf in Cabra. When they become 16, they will not be able to avail themselves of that allowance; yet the area boards are paying for their education in the Republic. It is handier for them to travel there because of the direct train service. Such a circumstance was not foreseen when the legislation was passed, but it seems cruel that, because those terribly disabled people are furthering their education outside the jurisdiction, they are denied severe disablement allowance. I ask the Minister to consider that.
I am concerned that community care grants are not being paid to some people for travelling to hospital. They have been told that they will not be paid retrospectively. When the small children of some of my constituents fell ill, their parents, who lived a considerable distance from the Crown buildings, were not able to avail themselves of those grants, because the office refused to pay them retrospectively. In some circumstances, it is surely impossible for parents to complete a form and all the formalities before visiting their child. That is a further anomaly that I ask the Minister to consider carefully.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I should like to take up some aspects of planning as they affect Northern Ireland.
Planners, who are not elected, have enormous powers to alter a community, without being responsible to anyone in that community or to the wishes of the community in general. They operate under regulations that are so restricted that moral, spiritual and social matters cannot readily be taken into consideration.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said that local councillors play only an advisory role and in practice have a limited influence on decisions, and that, whereas the applicant has power to appeal against a planner's decision, no such right is available to objectors.
Planning permission was given to infill a quarry situated on the main trunk road to Belfast airport. Despite many objections, the application was granted. As a result, overloaded lorries, transporting hundreds of tonnes of clay, have deposited a deadly and dangerous film of slime on that main thoroughfare, I have received an avalanche of correspondence from constituents and others who use the road, complaining bitterly of the road surface and the state of their vehicles. Many people, including senior citizens, use the road to gain access to the countryside, but as it is impossible to walk on the footpaths because of the mud, they are forced to use the road, thereby increasing the risk to their lives and to motorists who may have to brake in treacherous conditions to avoid them.
In addition, ratepayers must pay the Department of the Environment regularly to employ cleaning services. Despite all that expense, it is impossible to keep the road in an acceptable condition.
I voice the concern of the residents of Balmoral avenue, who are incensed about a decision to designate that formerly highly desirable residential avenue as a main trunk route. Surely some other means should have been found for diverting traffic across this section of the city. Residents who must pay the exceptionally high rates levied on this prime area should not have to contend with this imposition on their right to live in some peace and tranquillity.
Another worrying factor in present planning procedures concerns off-licences and liquor stores. These businesses can be set up without planning permission. That is causing great consternation among those concerned with the problems relating to the consumption of alcohol. Many of these establishments have been opened adjacent to church premises and other community projects. The conflicts of interest can easily be imagined, particularly when intoxicated lager louts who have been drinking in the proximity of their source of alcohol come into contact with more socially motivated people who have been attending church and community activities.
Of equal concern in this undemocratic planning process is the problem created by the leasing of church buildings. Decisions are taken without reference to local opinion. Although in general the feeling is that listing buildings is a sound principle, in inner-city areas buildings of little architectural merit sometimes cannot be altered without infringing regulations. In one case, there is a need to dispose of a building no longer needed by the Church, but because of listing it is unsaleable, and unless it is sold, it will be destroyed by vandals.
In yet another area of the inner city, a Church building has been virtually walled in on one side by a prestige development. Such dilemmas posed by regulations over which no one appears to have any control are seriously inhibiting the mission of inner-city churches. The Minister should look seriously at that and take the matter up with the various church organisations with a view to redressing this seemingly bureaucratic procedure.
Page 5, vote 1, deals with education. I am deeply worried about the introduction of formal tests for eight-year-olds, despite recommendations from the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council. The attainment testing of eight-year-olds could have serious psychological consequences on them. It is beyond comprehension that children at the tender age of eight could be forcibly reminded of the fact that they are below average. The reforms which the Minister seems intent on imposing on the educational establishment will have an adverse effect on our teachers. As the chairman of the Irish National Teachers Organisation stated at a recent conference:
It seems to have been a case of an English solution to an English problem which mysteriously got posted to Northern Ireland.
The view of most, if not all, of the teaching organisations is that whatever the need for such a system on the mainland, there is no case or demand for it in Northern Ireland.
In relation to page 5, vote 3, I express concern about the privatisation of domestic services in north and west Belfast. I am referring in particular to the tender by Grosvenor Cleaning Services. There are major doubts over the technical credibility of the company. It appears that no indication has been given of how the Grosvenor bid relates to comparator figures. There is concern that office cleaning comparators may have been used on what is essentially a social or health care contract.
There is also concern about the health and safety standards in the contract, as there is a potential legal liability to the Eastern health and social services board if this inadequate proposal leads to injury to board employees, contractors' employees or the general public. There are sufficient grounds to justify the rejection of the Grosvenor bid on the grounds of technical credibility.
In the Official Report of Standing Committee A for 19 November 1987 we read as follows:
Of course it is true that on numerous occasions I have said that authorities are not obliged to accept the lowest tender. If there are reasons to do with a particular contract such as the quality of the specification or the services that are directly related to the subject matter of that contract, authorities are entitled to take these matters into account and not for that type of reason accept that tender.
I should like to take up again the problems of glass-fronted room heaters. The elderly cannot cope with these appliances, and there have been problems associated with fumes which are causing serious asthmatic problems. There are now alternative forms of heating which are more appropriate for the elderly—economy 7, for instance. Will the Housing Executive consider that alternative for people for whom solid fuel systems have run their course and replacements have become necessary?
I should llike to mention elderly people who were originally transferred from inner-city areas to the highly elevated suburbs of Belfast, particularly north Belfast, because of redevelopment in their inner-city areas. After 30 years, they have grown elderly and cannot cope with the


conditions in those areas. I contend that, in such circumstances, they should be moved back whence they came to take advantage of the more centralised shopping facilities and flat living conditions. The elevated sites should be allocated to young families and more able-bodied people, who can more easily cope with that mode of living.

Mr. William Ross: In reply to an intervention by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Minister said that there was nothing in these estimates for hospital building which, he said, was covered in the main estimates. I was surprised to hear that, because I notice that the order supplies supplementary cash and provides money for next year, to the tune of £426·5 million, for the Department of Health and Social Services. I should be astonished if there was nothing in that sum for hospital building—I am sure that there is.
That brings me immediately to the new hospital in Coleraine. With a little gentle urging from me, the Minister was kind enough to drop in and see a deputation about that hospital. I think that he found the people in it a most efficient and able group who presented their case admirably. The Minister knows perfectly well that the need for that hospital has long been acknowledged; it was one of the framework hospitals for acute services in Northern Ireland. The debate as to whether it should be green field or rebuild has been finally laid to rest by the option of appraisal. In any case, the hospital is needed.
We are told that at one stage there was cash for part of the rebuild, but we know what Government cash is like —"Now you see it, now you don't." If the money was not spent on rebuild, it must have been spent on something else, so relief expenditure for other items should be available in some form. I hope that the Minister will listen to good advice, elect to rebuild, and let us get on with it. There is no need for delay. I offer him the following good advice from a letter written by an excellent source 117 years ago:
Don't throw good money after bad, build new; if you build, build wisely; of course you have a new building to suit its purpose, at moderate outlay. If you add and repair an old building not even originally constructed to suit their purpose, and certain to be deficient in the most essential requisites of health and comfort—you have at the end of all your additions and re-constructions a bad building, at immoderate outlay".
The Minister will be delighted to know that that letter was written by one Florence Nightingale, who certainly knew what things were about. It was written on 29 January 1874 to the honorary secretary of the Belfast nurses home, but I could not have put the case better in relation to Coleraine hospital. I hope that the Minister will follow the good advice of the matron of modern nursing practice.
Reference has also been made to hazardous waste. The Minister will be aware of the furore in my part of the world about the Du Pont proposal to build a toxic waste incinerator, or more accurately a hazardous waste incinerator. Some documents state that the Du Pont site produces 700 tonnes of toxic and hazardous waste per year, while others put it at 75,000 tonnes. The incinerator is an attractive proposal for the company because it means that it would not have to transport any of its waste off site while all its competitors in the island of Ireland would have to transport their waste to that site, thus adding to their

costs. The incinerator is a good commercial enterprise for Du Pont, which would have a monopoly of the disposal of such waste—there is nothing similar in the rest of Ireland. Under European Community regulations it would also be mighty difficult to get that waste out of the island to burn it anywhere else.
Although there might be other ways in which to deal with toxic and hazardous waste, the normal practice is to burn it at specific temperatures. If we are to have such an incinerator anywhere in Ireland, the worse possible place is the upwind side of the island. The prevailing winds are generally west, south-west or south. They rarely blow from the north or the east. Given the problems and attendant hazards which arose from the incorrect burning of waste in the Irish Republic, if we are to have such an incinerator anywhere on the island it should be erected on the east coast so that any toxic fumes produced would at least be blown out to sea.
I do not want the Minister to forget about the alarm generated a few years ago, when it was thought that a toxic cloud had been produced at the Du Pont works and was floating towards Londonderry. We were all thankful to discover that that report stretched the truth, but mistakes can happen and their consequences should be limited. To achieve that, it would be best to locate any incinerator where any possible fumes would be blown out to sea rather than across land.
I believe that LEDU, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and the IDB, the Industrial Development Board, are supposed to bring manufacturing industry to Northern Ireland. LEDU primarily deals with the native-born people and I am concerned about its activities. I repeat the concern that I expressed last year. I have been less than satisfied with the help that LEDU has given in a number of cases. An applicant for a grant for the production of high-quality concrete props was turned down for the second time after being encouraged by LEDU to apply and incurring considerable costs in producing a plan. A saw mill was also refused a grant, on the grounds of a shortage of timber, although that small-scale operation had sufficient timber to carry on. I also recall a long delay before a fellow finally got a grant for tools to write inscriptions for tombstones. Although he made his living in that way, it was years before the grant was paid. That seems a bit daft to me.
The problem may have been that people were already doing those things, and one might inquire whether it is wise to encourage applicants in such trades. However, LEDU fulfils a useful function in some sectors. It can give help and support at the lowest level where someone comes up with another way of doing something simple. It can also provide help and support in the final stages when a firm produces a plan, all neatly typed, with everything covered. LEDU then often pays the grant because all the preliminary work has been done.
Unfortunately, there is a great hole between those two ends of the spectrum. It occurs when an individual is doing something that is new. I will cite two cases. One is that of a sock manufacturer, who found that the machines which were supposed to be simple to operate were not all that simple, but when he went back to LEDU for a bit more help, which would have saved the firm, it was not given and the firm went down the bunghole.
The second case was more serious, and I have mentioned it in the House before. A constituent of mine came up with a method of jointing metal tubing—a


process with wide applications, especially in plumbing where lead in water is a problem. The concept is new, it works, and I believe that his products will come on to the market fairly soon. The case has caused me some heartache and pain as the impression given to the inventor by the LEDU leaflet was not fulfilled in practice, leading to a long and bitter exchange between him and that body.
LEDU was not willing to grant further funding, because it was not prepared to let the inventor stay in control of the project. He was not prepared to accept that, and he was never satisfied that LEDU was directing him to the people who could give him the help that he needed with some of the difficult technical aspects of the project. He believes that, on one occasion, LEDU undermined his bargaining strength, and that it never set out a clear plan for how best to carry the project to fruition.
I could take up the rest of the time allotted to this debate with the detail of that case, but I will not. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will look again not only at that case but at certain implications of it. I may well return to the matter in more detail another time. It is necessary to find a solution acceptable to all, because this is something that will be useful and could pay rich dividends.
Beyond that case, we must find a more satisfactory way to deal with the individual who comes up with a

completely new invention or industrial application. We need to find a better way to fund research and development, right through from inception to arrival at the marketplace. That is especially true of patent costs, which are high. Often the backyard worker does not have that sort of cash. The Government should look carefully at setting up a fund to try to carry these projects through because they often involve people with little experience of the commercial world.
We should finance our native inventors. That is a far better way to spend money than throwing millions at de Lorean and the like. Millions were invested in textiles in the 1960s, but that industry melted away when the going got rough. Millions were spent trying to build aircraft at Aldergrove. If £1 million per year were spent on encouraging our native inventors, and if the Government were prepared to lose many of the projects, because many will go under, that would be a better way to go about things. Some of the projects will succeed, and those which succeed will pay rich dividends.
I suggest that the Minister talks to some of those who have been frustrated by the activities of LEDU. He will then understand the anger that they feel and perhaps reach a clearer understanding of what I am saying and try to make that organisation better.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Peter Robinson: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the others who have occupied the Chair this evening have been fortunate indeed. For almost four hours, Northern Ireland Members—people from both traditions in the Province—have spoken without any division or argument among themselves.
The only note of controversy injected into the debate came from an Englishman. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—misery-guts that he is—took the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to task for having the audacity to attempt to resolve problems in the Province. The hon. Gentleman told us that the initiative had failed—indeed, that it had been pronounced dead from the very beginning. He came to the House, complete with his funeral garb, to deliver an oration at the funeral of what he called the Brooke initiative.
The members of my party certainly do not want that initiative to fail. We recognise the very real need for progress towards the creation of structures in Northern Ireland. It was this House and the party of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West which took the Stormont Parliament from us. It is their fault that we do not have a local body with legislative powers. If some of them had been able to look into the future, they might not have been so quick to put their hands to the destruction of Stormont.
However, the hon. Gentleman was right about at least one thing. He recognises that the way in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with in the House is far from satisfactory. It should not be necessary to bring day-to-day, bread-and-butter issues here. However, I make no apology for raising in this debate issues that some hon. Members may consider trivial.
I want to start on a note of thanks to the Government. The last time I took part in an appropriation debate I raised a matter of concern to not only myself but the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). I permitted the hon. Gentleman to intervene when, during my speech, I referred to Merton park, for which he and I, as Members of Parliament, share responsibility. Unfortunately, he did not return the favour this evening. He and I recognised the inadequacy of the way in which Merton park was being dealt with. The Minister undertook to look into the matter, and I was given the opportunity to speak to a number of officials. I am glad to say that it has been decided that there should be a fully integrated scheme, which will greatly enhance the lives of the people of Merton park. I trust that the Minister and his officials will ensure that good ideas will be translated into action and that the necessary finance will be available.
I realise that, because of the time restriction, I shall be able only to put down some markers. I hope that the Minister of State will draw to the attention of his ministerial colleague who is responsible for the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment the crisis in relation to grants for the repair and improvement of houses. The system is now so bogged down that only people with financial difficulties get any money out of the scheme, and they have to wait a considerable time for grants to come through. The Minister is guilty of very false logic and very false economy. The rate of unfitness of

property will increase considerably before very long. The housing stock is not being repaired and improved sufficiently. It is a major problem, and I urge that funds are freed for such an important purpose.
There has already been reference to planning issues. The hon. Member for North Down rightly talked about the difficulties that objectors have if a planning department recommends approval of the application. There is no automatic appeal for objectors. The hon. Gentleman will recognise—he was the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly—that the environment committee was able to wring out of the then Minister a concession that if two thirds of the members of a district council expressed serious concerns, there could be an article 22 inquiry. The hon. Gentleman and I recognised that the concession did not go far enough. That is a process that operates as a result of the grace and favour of the Department, but perhaps it has established itself to some degree in custom and practice. Many of us would like it to be established in planning law. A planning order is coming before the House, and I hope that the Minister will incorporate such a provision within it.
I think that the Minister should go even further because the two thirds restriction is unnecessary. A majority in a district council would be satisfactory. Planning is one area in which there has been great contention between the political parties within district councils. In some instances that is right, but the Minister should not be concerned if the district council is merely referring the matter to an appeal tribunal.
There are serious difficulties with enforcement because the Department is so slow to act. The most outrageous scheme can be pursued for a long time without the necessary action being taken, and this is causing great annoyance. Steps must be taken to accelerate the enforcement procedures. I recognise that there are legal difficulties, but the Department must be capable of finding means of ensuring that enforcement procedures operate much more speedily.
During most appropriation order debates over the past three or four years I have referred to ex-post-facto applications. In most instances they are made by those who decide to build now and apply later. The applications are increasing in number and because of the slowness of enforcement procedures there is no official response for a long time. I have suggested that the Minister incorporates a penalty clause in the new planning order that is to come before the House which requires someone who builds without planning permission to pay 10 times the penalty that is normally imposed in Northern Ireland. The Minister has not, unfortunately, taken up the suggestion. In a recent schedule that came before a district council in the area which I represent, 25 per cent. of the applications were ex post facto. That shows how planning laws are being flouted.
As for roads, I thank the Government for the progress that has been made with the construction of the dual carriageway between Supermac and the Upper Newtownards road. I am glad that it was decided at the Belfast urban area plan hearings that the Castlereagh roundabout should have not a flyover but an upgraded traffic light system. That system has been put into operation and it seems to be working successfully, as are the traffic lights at the Castledona junction. Those schemes were urged on the Government by the local council and


they were reluctant to implement them. The schemes were implemented, however, and they have proved to be successful.
I ask the Minister to consider the serious traffic problem at Ryan park, just up from the Castlereagh roundabout. I suspect that, before too long, I shall have to inform the House of a fatality there. The traffic moves quickly and young children have to cross the road to get to buses. There have been several near-misses. The Department has been pressed consistently on that matter, but, as yet, has taken no satisfactory steps to avoid the problem. I urge the Minister to consider this matter before a fatality occurs.
I turn to the education vote and transport to schools. In my constituency, there was a primary school at Clarawood. It was very much the centre of the area. All the life on the estate revolved round the school. It was used in the evenings for community purposes. All the young people in the area went to the school. The Government, as part of their rationalisation programme, decided to scrap it. They said that they could not allow a school with such low attendance to continue.
The children were forced to go to Orangefield primary school, some two miles away by road; but it was not two miles away if one had to cross a muddy field. The Belfast education and library board has decided that, whether the rain comes down in torrents or whether there is snow on the ground, the young children have to go across the field because it will not provide them with the transport to go by road.
Mothers with young children of four or more are forced to wade across the field in the worst of weather. They must even cross a river which has a plank across it. The Belfast education and library board believes that that is a fit route by which parents can take their children. That is unsatisfactory. This step was taken only to provide financial savings. As the board took the local school from the area, it has a responsibility to provide children with the kind of minibus used by many other schools in the area which probably have less need. I urge the Minister to use his influence with the board to deal with this matter.
The Government's record on allocating funds to district councils for sport and leisure services is abysmal. They have cut so much that district councils looking for the normal grant aid for leisure provision now get nothing. The councils' capital programmes have come to a halt, unless they are prepared to put all the burden on the local rates.
The cuts in community services are beginning. Local communities suffer because the Government want their finances to look better, and do not mind local government finances looking worse. The Government are quite happy about the rates going up and the blame falling on local councillors. They do not want to take the blame, all hough the responsibility has been theirs for a long time. I urge them to put funds into the education budget so that the programme of capital expenditure on leisure centres and other educational provisions and important community work can recommence in the Province.

Mr. David Trimble: I appreciate that time is now rather limited, so I will keep to the period suggested. For that reason, I will have to be brief in some of my comments.
From the debate a few weeks ago on the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1990, the Minister will remember that I made some comments about Spelga hospital in Banbridge. He will appreciate the considerable concern in the local community about the threatened closure of that hospital before proper refurbishment of the main Banbridge hospital is carried out. I hope that there will be a speedy resolution of the uncertainty, and that the matter will be resolved appropriately. The concern about Banbridge hospital is heightened by the fact that there is no casualty unit there at present, because of a lack of senior staff. I hope that something can be done about that.
I want to mention some Department of the Environment matters concerning planning. I am sure ghat the Minister knows that Craigavon district is unique in Northern Ireland, as the only area for which there is no statutory development plan. Well over 20 years ago, there was a non-statutory plan, but it has long since been superseded by the failure of the Craigavon new city concept. Planning in the area is carried out on an unsatisfactory basis.
I realise that there has been a recent study on the Craigavon central area and that there is talk about having studies on the Portadown and Lurgan town centres, but is that the right way to proceed? Should we not be thinking in terms of producing a proper development plan for the whole of Craigavon, rather than building up a patchwork for the central area, for Portadown and for Lurgan?
Two specific matters are causing concern in the area. Under the central area plan, it has been proposed that there be a link between the M1 and the centre. As the Minister may be aware, that link would run over land that was originally vested in the mid-1960s for the new city. A number of years later, when that project was not carried through successfully, the land was surplus, and it was disposed of to the original owners. They were encouraged to invest considerable sums in bringing the area back under control and to put other investments into the area. They are now threatened with that area being re-vested. I want that matter to be looked at carefully. The concept of a link is good, but we want it to be routed so that it does not involve the re-vesting of surplus land, which has been disposed of.
I raised the matter of the blight in the centre of Lurgan in the appropriation debate last May. I understand that that stems from a throughpass proposal which was part of the original new city proposals. The throughpass was planned to go from Arthur street to Malcolm road. As a result, part of the centre of Lurgan has been blighted for over a decade. Some work has been done by housing associations to try to recover the area.
Is the throughpass proposal really necessary? Like most of our Ulster towns, Lurgan has a broad central street running through it. There are occasional traffic problems, but they are no greater than in any other substantial town in rush hour. I should like people to study closely whether the throughpass proposal is necessary. If the proposal were


finally to be dropped—it has effectively been dropped for 20 years, because nothing has been done to implement it —the blight would be removed. A considerable area in the centre of the town could be redeveloped, which would be for the town's benefit.
I want to raise a matter that may seem small, but which is important to the people concerned. During the very cold winter weather, I became conscious of the plight of people affected by Housing Executive renovation schemes. They had been rehoused temporarily in caravans during the cold weather. There was obvious inconvenience, and additional costs were incurred.
I discover that there is provision under legislation for the executive to make payments to compensate people who have been displaced temporarily. The payments are made on a standard basis without any regard to the costs incurred, yet the Department has the power to make regulations and I understand that that power has not been exercised. Can that be looked at? Can the regulations make provision for the special additional costs incurred everywhere during the recent very cold spell?
I had hoped to deal with two substantial points at some length. One relates to a matter that is the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development and of the Industrial Development Board. Last week, I dropped a note to the relevant Minister telling him that I propose to raise the matter in this debate. I am sure that it is not a lack of interest in the subject that has caused him not to be here this evening. The difficulty was caused by an imaginative proposal which was started a number of years ago by the Northern Ireland Aeronautics Technical Training Aviation company—which is a mouthful, so I shall hereinafter call it NIATTA.
The proposal emerged in the late 1980s. It is a good proposal and tends to build upon skills that exist within Northern Ireland, both in terms of aeronautics and engineering. The proposal identifies a need for aeronautical training for engineering and servicing aircraft. Essentially, the proposal comprises two phases. The first is to train engineers, who may be used to service aircraft in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, which is important skills training, would build upon existing skills in Northern Ireland and would equip people for useful employment there or elsewhere.
The second stage of the development would comprise the establishment of a substantial servicing operation locally, which would be viable if the necessary investment were made and could provide up to 1,000 highly skilled jobs.
Since its inception, the progress of the proposal has been a sorry tale. Way back in June 1988, there was a meeting, as a result of which the secretary to the then Minister responsible for the Department of Economic Development replied to NIATTA saying:
if you are willing to set up a commercial aircraft servicing and training company as a prerequisite to the actual aircraft servicing phase of the business the Department would consider grant aiding the training of employees".
In August 1988, it was stated that the grant aid would be on the same training basis as on the mainland. However, in November that year, the proposal from the Department of Economic Development—as it was then —was to reduce the grant to less than 40 per cent. of the equivalent on the mainland. Despite that, a detailed

business plan was submitted to the Industrial Development Board. Unfortunately, it has not responded effectively to the proposal. In March 1990, it requested additional information, which was provided on two subsequent occasions—in June and October 1990—giving detailed cash flow projections for the first phase of the development, not merely for one but for three years.
Unfortunately, there has not been a positive response from the IDB, which keeps saying that it needs to have a detailed business plan for the second phase. In the nature of the business, that is unrealistic. The first phase concerns training of engineers who are working on servicing, but the second phase of establishing a servicing operation in Northern Ireland would require detailed knowledge of what hangars and runway facilities were available, what level of training would be achieved, what qualifications would be achieved and what relationships there would be with particular companies. That is an unrealistic request.
However, sufficient information is available to enable a decision to be taken on the first phase. Regrettably, the IDB is not responding to that proposal, which would be extremely valuable. It is an imaginative proposal, but it seems that the IDB is too earthbound in its attitude to the matter to be able to respond to it.
I am sorry that the Minister is not available to reply to my remarks, but I hope that these comments will be carried to him, so that he can come back to me.
The other matter of substance, which I touched upon in an intervention on the Minister at the beginning of the debate, concerns the way in which the cultural traditions programme has been developed. I must explain the arguments that I mentioned indirectly then.
As part of the cultural traditions programme, there have been a series of conferences—the third will take place later this month. There are a total of nine major participants in terms of speakers and chairmen of working groups. When one examines the nine, one finds that, using the criteria spelled out in the current employment legislation to determine the ethnic origins of persons involved, five seem to be of Irish origin—using the term in its widest sense. Four of them can be identified, using the criteria in the legislation, as nationalist or belonging to the nationalist community. The fifth is perhaps not, but he is a civil servant, and I expect that his politics will not enter into the matter.
Consequently, we find that four of the five Irish participants at the conference on cultural traditions can be attributed to one community group, and that there is no one who can be regarded as representing the Ulster British tradition, at a conference which is supposed to deal with the traditions of both communities. I told the Minister that this was inadequate, and he acknowledged that that was a fair argument. The cultural traditions group may make the defence that it had invited a person to represent the Ulster-British viewpoint because an officer of my party, one of the honorary secretaries, was invited. That is no excuse.

Mr. Mallon: He was in Dublin.

Mr. Trimble: The conference has not yet taken place. The group knew that he could not attend because the Saturday of the conference coincides with the annual general meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council. All officers of the council are elected annually, so that officer could not possibly have attended. It is not as if the cultural traditions


group did not know that, because I had exactly the same problem last year when I could not attend the conference because of the annual general meeting. The group knew that, so I am not prepared to accept its excuse.

Mr. Beggs: Who is the chairman?

Mr. Trimble: I shall come to that.
The background to this matter is that the cultural traditions group was formed a couple of years ago and the then chairman, hon. Members will be amused to hear, was a man whom I regarded with considerable suspicion; I told him so, so I am not saying anything behind his back. I doubted his attitude to the matter, but at least he recognised the need to include representatives of both communities. Consequently, he approached me in my capacity as chairman of the Ulster Society, because, outside the loyal orders and political parties, that society is the only body in Northern Ireland which is committed to promoting the Ulster-British culture and heritage.
He invited me to join the conference committee, which I did, and we made a contribution to that first conference. Because of my involvement in a by-election last year, I was not able to undertake the same role in the second conference. The commitment from our society came from its secretary, Gordon Lucy. As a result, there was an input to the second conference.
For the third conference, my colleague was ignored. Gordon received no notification of any meetings of the conference committee. There was complete silence, and then we find the present conference arranged with an unbalanced membership. That is particularly annoying, because the theme of the conference is European issues, and the deputy chairman of my society is uniquely fitted to deal with that subject, because he is a recognised authority on the ethnic and cultural disputes in Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has said, there has been a change in the chairmanship; I am afraid that the present chairman, Dr. Maurice Hayes, does not seem to display the same sensitivity as his predecessor. I hope that that will be examined.
Finally, I should like to deal with a couple of brief matters. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) spoke about the way in which Northern Ireland matters are handled in the House as a constitutional slum. A happening this evening reminds me that there is some truth in that. In conducting its affairs, the Northern Ireland Office tends to arrange for things to happen across the water in Belfast, and does not always arrange for people over here to know.
Earlier this evening, I received a telephone call from the BBC in Belfast asking whether I could comment on a draft Order in Council which, apparently, was published today in Belfast. Other hon. Members may have received a similar request. Of course, it is not available in London, and one cannot comment on it. Hon. Members who attend to their duties in the House find themselves at a disadvantage about what is happening on the ground in Northern Ireland, and that is unsatisfactory.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West went on to criticise the provision in the appropriation order relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly I am afraid that I do not share his criticism. I am glad to see that there is some expenditure to keep some aspects of the Assembly going because there is a need for a regional administration or government, call it what we will.
Hon. Members spoke about the problems that we face vis-a-vis Europe and the concepts of additionality. Dealing with regional and structural funds in the absence of a regional administration makes things worse. The European Commission and its civil servants go to other major European countries to discuss the operation of regional policy. When they go to Bavaria and want to know how regional policy should apply to that area, they can speak to the Government of the Bavarian Land, who will give a view. Unfortunately, when the Commission comes to talk to people in the United Kingdom and goes to Scotland and speaks to the Scottish Office, it does not get a Scottish answer: it gets a Treasury answer. If it speaks to the Northern Ireland Office, it does not get a Northern Ireland answer but a Treasury answer. The problem of additionality rests primarily with the Treasury.
We in Northern Ireland in particular feel the absence of a regional administration, but that problem is not confined to us, and it should also be tackled. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if my final comments have strayed from the subject of the order, but I will now conclude my remarks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate—perhaps more wide-ranging from one direction than the order warranted. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) follows one of his predecessors as a Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton in having a special place in Northern Ireland's history.
The debate was conducted with great courtesy, with all the speakers from the Province exhibiting great oratorical skill. They served their constituents with distinction, and spoke with care and in great detail. I shall try to cover as many points as possible in the time available to me.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who kindly gave notice that he could not be present for the end of the debate, expressed concern about the Province's economic situation and its possible impact on employment levels. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his excellent opening remarks, the upturn in unemployment in recent months is extremely disappointing, but it must be seen in the context of the sustained period of employment growth that Northern Ireland enjoyed over the past four and a half years, when unemployment fell by almost 28,000.
The recent upward movement in Northern Ireland's unemployment level is less marked, proportionately, than in Great Britain, and we hope that it will be short-lived. It would be silly of anyone, including me, to make any predictions, but much of the employment downturn has been in sectors such as distribution, hotels and catering, which are particularly sensitive to changes in demand—and I suspect that they will recover quickly when demand picks up.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South drew attention to the Cambridge university report. I regret that its predictions were at the pessimistic end of the forecasting spectrum, but the Government recognise that the completion of the single market entails both challenges and opportunities. It is for individual firms to respond to them, and the Government's strategy is aimed at


encouraging local companies to improve their competi-tiveness and to take full advantage of the opportunities on offer.
The time ahead will not be easy, but Northern Ireland companies are well suited to meet those challenges and to exploit those opportunities. The hon. Member for Leicester, South spoke of targeting social need—some-thing in which I have a particular interest, as have my colleagues. In allocating public expenditure resources nationally, we have consistently recognised the greater needs of Northern Ireland. That is reflected in the higher levels of public expenditure per head of population.
The targeting of social need priority seeks significantly to accelerate improvement of the social and economic conditions in the most disadvantaged areas and of the people of Northern Ireland. The thrust of priority is to address need, which is defined as deprivation or disadvantage, as identified by objective criteria, wherever it may exist in the community, and to apply any action even-handedly to all who fall within the objectively defined categories.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South mentioned the provision of a natural gas pipeline between Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. The technical and economic feasibility of using gas for power generation is being assessed, several possible routes for a pipeline from Great Britain are being examined, and seabed surveys have been completed. The crucial issue will be the price of gas delivered to the power stations by comparison with existing fuels.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity and the resignation of its chairman. My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), the other Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, has already paid a well-earned tribute to Dr. Schierbeek's sterling service in his capacity as a board member of NIE, as deputy chairman and, for the past five years, as chairman. I, too, wish him well in the future. Following his resignation, there was speculation about the Government's proposals for the privatisation; any comment would, I think, be best reserved until the publication of the White Paper later this month. There will then be ample opportunity for all the various interests to make their views known.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South also mentioned training and employment. He asked why the Government did not consult interested parties, other than employers. The Training and Employment Agency has an advisory board, whose members have been chosen because of the contribution that they can make to the agency's activities. They include representatives from industry and commerce, but also from education and, indeed, from trade unions and community organisations. I believe that the board will act as an important catalyst in forging effective partnerships between the agency and the business community.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised a number of important points, one of which concerned Rathlin island. I assure him that NIE and the Department of Economic Development are considering the possibility of providing a mains electricity supply for the island, and that the departure of the good Dr. Schierbeek will not alter that. Various types of installation

have been identified, but a preliminary application for grant has already been made to the European Community under the Valoren scheme which, if successful, could partly finance the project. I certainly hope that progress will be made.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the agricultural difficulties arising from the EC proposals. I acknowledge that those difficulties exist. The Commission's initial proposals—and the MacSharry leaks before them—met with considerable opposition; the only subject of universal agreement seemed to be the need for reform of the CAP. Budgetary constraints, however, are likely to force the Commission to present stringent price proposals in 1991, The United Kingdom welcomes reform of the CAP, but any measures that are taken must not discriminate against the larger efficient farms in the United Kingdom. Even the small farms in Northern Ireland seem to be regarded as large compared with many in Europe—a point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North with telling passion. Certainly the farms in Northern Ireland, however small, are efficient by many European standards.
I believe that the CAP should indeed be a common agricultural policy, and that the harm should not affect any particular area. I intend to fight fully for the interests of Northern Ireland agriculture; on my first day in the job I said that I would be its champion, and since then I have discovered that it is not only a battle worth fighting, but a battle for people who are worth supporting. Agriculture is an important part of Northern Ireland's economy.
Like many other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned fallen animals. Regrettably, progress has been painfully slow and extremely delicate; almost every day I have had to struggle with the issues, and my officials—especially the permanent secretary—have tried very hard to get all the interested parties together to find a solution. We need co-operation from all those involved in Northern Ireland agriculture—not only the food producers and the by-product manufacturers but the feed compounders, the renderers and, indeed, local authorities. The district councils have an extremely important part to play. The Department of Agriculture, however, has a catalyst role, and also a veterinary role.
I hesitate to say this, but I know that hon. Members want to know the most up-to-date position. I am close to announcing that a solution has been found, but I warn hon. Members in all parts of the House that at least twice during the last two months I have been close to announcing a solution. Therefore, I hope that my wishes will not be dashed at the last hurdle, as they were on those occasions. I hope to make an announcement next week. I am grateful for the patience and the good advice I have received from hon. Members during the last three months. I believe that a solution is likely to be announced next week. I shall write to all hon. Members immediately that happens.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to flooding. I am grateful to him for what he said. I recognise fully the difficulties faced by those who are not farmers but also suffered from the flooding. The farming community's gratitude for the assistance that it received, after the initial difficulties, from the ADOP funds was heartwarming.
The Government have made it clear that they do not normally compensate for insurable losses, or losses which arise from weather abnormalities, but an exception was made in the case of North Antrim flooding due to the extreme severity and the permanent nature of the damage.
I am pleased, therefore, that we were able to offer some assistance to those farmers. Nevertheless that does not alter the general principle. Naturally I understand the issue raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), but that must fall within the normal pattern.

Mr. William Ross: The principle that the Minister has applied to the North Antrim floods must surely apply to the October 1987 floods as well.

Mr. Hanley: I recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman does, but it was well before my time as a Minister. Serious floods have occurred on many occasions, but the damage is not always so permanent as it was in the glens on that evil night. I maintain that the compensation that we have offered is as far as we can take it at this stage.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ask about capital expenditure for hospitals. This year we allocated £44 million for capital expenditure on hospitals, thus ensuring that the momentum is maintained. That is an 18 per cent. increase on the previous year. Major projects are under way in the Province, which should be very proud of its capital expenditure successes in this financial year. When completed, the new hospital at Antrim will cost £35 million. Regional cardiac services at the Royal Victoria hospital are being expanded. A new 120-bed geriatric unit at Gransha in Londonderry has recently been opened. Construction work is starting on a new 72-bed unit at Whiteabbey hospital. A new linear accelerator has been announced, as well as a new headquarters for the blood transfusion service. Many people over here wonder how Northern Ireland gets away with it.
Many hon. Members referred to Coleraine hospital. I was very pleased to meet members of the action committee, albeit briefly and I look forward to meeting them again in the near future. I spent four hours last Friday carrying out research into various issues put to me by the Northern health board. I also visited the Antrim site. I was most impressed by that hospital. I shall be visiting Coleraine in the near future. A local newspaper said that I planned to visit the Coleraine site for four hours. To stand in a green field, even as a Minister with responsibility for agriculture, for four hours might test my patience. What I meant was that I should be concentrating on the issue for at least four hours last Friday. I shall be visiting the site and taking representations from all parties in the near future.
It is understandable that hon. Members should want to spell out the needs of hospitals in their own areas, but the Government have to consider the overall needs and the best means of addressing them. We have rules on major capital expenditure which require detailed investment appraisals of all the costs and benefits of the feasible options. I am pleased that the Northern board recently completed an appraisal of the Coleraine hospital and recommended a new-build hospital on a green-field site. The board is consulting local interests. I assure the hon. Member for Antrim, North and other hon. Members that my decision will be taken as expeditiously as possible. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the matters that he raised on other hospitals, including the Moyle and Downpatrick. I am dealing with the concerns that have been expressed.
The hon. member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said that Northern Ireland Electricity should not be privatised by Order in Council. There are many other issues to be considered, but essentially this is a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. There will therefore be extremely full consultation when the White Paper is published.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned rural development, for which I was recently given ministerial responsibility. He suggested that the Minister responsible should visit the Seeconnell site. I visited the area three months ago, and I found it an inspirational example of community development. Such a bottom-up approach, with the initiative coming from local people to try to keep the area based on agriculture and its young people on the land, is exactly what we are looking for. I was therefore pleased to be able to give them some money from the 1·4 mecu that we received from the European Community for pilot projects, of which Seeconnell was one. The £20,000 that it received will help with its feasibility study.
The hon. Member for South Down mentioned reductions in farm incomes in Northern Ireland. I can only agree with him and regret those reductions. There has been some good news, but last year was bad. The Government recognise the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy, and it will be one of the factors that we take into account when taking a robust stance in Europe.
The hon. Member for South Down mentioned many other issues, such as the activity of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit in the Down district council area. The story is excellent, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. The IDB has 12 customer companies in the Down district area employing 1,200 people. There are two industrial estates—one is full and the other is filling up. LEDU has 83 client companies in the Down district area. The IDB arranged nine inward visits to the Down area.
I shall write to the hon. Member for South Down about the troubles with the spinning industry, but he will recognise that one of the major customers in Brazil has collapsed, which is one reason why workers have been laid off.
I thoroughly agree with the comments of the hon. Member for South Down about family credit forms. I welcome his suggestions and will bring them to the attention of those concerned to promote increased take up of family benefit and other benefits. The forms are full of gobbledegook and are difficult to complete. Even a chartered accountant would experience difficulty with some of them.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr.Kilfedder) mentioned Bregenz house, of which I saw the details the other day, and I know that the hon. Gentleman presented a petition to the House which is being considered by the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North will return from fighting for Ulster in the far east on Thursday. I look forward to giving him details of all the various roads that were mentioned in tonight's debate.
Health councils, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), will be set up as soon as possible. District councils are being asked to nominate members in the next


three weeks and we are advertising in newspapers for the other members. I agree that the subject of waste disposal is absolutely vital.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said that farm incomes are low. The rural development programme has been based on an inter-departmental committee. We recognise that planning issues are extremely important, and I plan to have a meeting with my fellow Under-Secretary of State to discuss them. The other answers to his questions will be forthcoming [Interruption.] The message says that I may have the extra two minutes, thanks to the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that noise was a form of pollution and I thoroughly agree with him. I shall make sure that in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, we shall look at that matter afresh. I shall certainly look into the disablement allowance case when I have Hansard to hand.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) talked about competitive tendering standards. Although I cannot comment on the specific tender, I can say that quality of service is the overriding concern in every contract. All work undertaken in bringing forward this initiative has fully taken standards into account. I shall deal with educational assessment in writing.
I have dealt with most of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The issues raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North. In response to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I know that my hon. Friend well knows Craigavon's particular problems and circumstances, as do I. I have visited it regularly and I know that my hon. Friend will respond.
In the time available, I have tried to answer as many of the points raised in the debate as I can. I will arrange for written replies to be sent on the outstanding points. I know that Northern Ireland Members in particular welcome the opportunities provided by appropriation debates to raise issues which concern them and their constituents. They would not expect me, therefore, to be able to cover everything in response. This evening is for them, and they have, understandably, focused on some of the problems facing Northern Ireland.
In the nearly four months that I have been a Northern Ireland Minister, I have also come to recognise the positive

side to life in Northern Ireland, which is often overlooked. I have been struck by the friendliness and enthusiasm of the people, by their determination to overcome setbacks and difficulties, and by their hopes for the future. I have even enjoyed the company, advice and good will of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have greatly helped me to carry out my job and welcome my tasks. I am also impressed by the exciting developments in the pipeline in the Province——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

TRAFFIC AREAS (REORGANISATION)

That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1991, dated 12th February 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

CONTRACT AWARDS

(COMPLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY PROCEDURES)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8162/90, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H.M. Treasury on 26th February relating to compliance with the Community rules on procedures for the award of supplies, works and certain services contracts by operators in the energy, telecommunications, transport and water sectors; and supports the Government's intention to press for an effective means of encouraging compliance by providing appropriate remedies for suppliers and contractors harmed by a breach of those rules and which places appropriate responsibility on member states.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Scottish Regiments

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Bill Walker: The Ministry of Defence is properly reviewing the structure, personnel and assets of the three armed services in the light of envisaged defence needs, following the ending of the cold war and the reunification of Germany.
This evening I wish to draw attention to the concern in Scotland about the speculation which has been rife over the future of Scotland's regiments and military bases. In an early-day motion I drew attention to the fact that, in the 300 years since the Act of Union, Scotland has contributed massively towards the British armed forces. Scottish regiments have a record of being in the thick of battle in defence of our British national interests. I also drew attention to the fact that the vast majority of Scots have welcomed the many military bases located in Scotland.
The points that I wish to make this evening are political, economic and strategic. The Ministry of Defence should reject the current conventional wisdom that the United Kingdom no longer needs to maintain a viable, European theatre, credible, conventional and nuclear deterrent capability. The idea is that somehow there is a peace dividend that will produce massive cuts in the defence budget and substantial reductions in manpower and equipment. The conventional wisdom was wrong about the Falklands and out-of-theatre naval operations. Thanks to the existence of the through-deck cruiser, now known as the mini-aircraft carrier, and the Harrier aircraft, linked to the skill and courage of our professional military, the politicians' chestnuts were pulled out of the fire and the Falklands were retaken.
Conventional wisdom was also wrong about the middle east, and was again spectacularly wrong about Iraq and the Gulf. Does anyone seriously believe that the United Nations will not look again to the United States and Britain for military support to prevent further military aggression; or that in this dangerous and unstable world, we shall not again be forced to act militarily to defend our national interests; or that a nuclear-capable and politically unstable Soviet Union may not be more dangerous than a stable cold-war Soviet Union? Can we ever be sure that the Soviet military, which has transferred more tanks than the British Army possesses to the Soviet navy in an attempt to circumvent conventional arms treaties, may not be tempted to indulge in risking military adventures against democratic neighbouring states or former COMECON states, even if only to divert attention from its domestic problems?
Events in the Gulf have clearly shown that our Community partners cannot be guaranteed to make common cause against a dictator, even when the dictator, as in the Gulf, is threatening vital European interests. At first, Germany was against the United Nations moves, while France and Italy, at the beginning, can best be described as having dithered and wobbled. Belgium's refusal to co-operate and supply ammunition demonstrat-ed that common weapons and ammunition are of 'value only when they are available. Belgium's refusal was a poor reward for our having freed that country twice this

century, and it contrasted badly with the ready United States assistance given to the United Kingdom during the Falklands war.
I believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that, instead of making defence cuts, we should invest in new technology and smart weapons. We cannot ignore the low casualties and the importance of aerial supremacy, linked to control of the sea lanes, which produced a massive military victory in the Gulf.
There are sound military and British reasons for changing "Options for Change" to "Options for Improvement and Capability". Such a policy would call for modern, flexible, out-of-theatre rapid deployment forces, with a European conventional and nuclear capability. There are also sound strategic and economic reasons, as well as military reasons, for maintaining Scotland's military bases and regiments. General Schwarzkopf is reported to have told the Jocks that the Gulf war could not have been successfully concluded without them. The Prime Minister said in Scotland last week that the Jocks were in the Gulf because they were the best troops to do the job.
One lesson of the Gulf is that modern, highly trained professional soldiers can be in battle in battalions made up from a number of different regiments. I hope, however, that that important experience will not lead Ministers into making the mistake of believing that regimental loyalties and traditions are no longer important in battle conditions. First, commanders must have troops from different regiments under their command. Consequently, in peace time, recruitment and retention are essential ingredients if adequate wartime numbers of professional and trained troops are to be available. In that respect, Scotland's regiments have a contribution to make as their record of recruitment and retention is of the best. If one excludes periods such as last year, when recruitment was frozen the Scottish regiments have always been able to find enough recruits of the right quality. If mixed battalions are to be used, it is better to reinforce success and to keep the regiments with the best records of recruitment and retention.
There is an old military axiom, "back success", and that axiom will apply even if the cavalry of the future operates helicopters instead of tanks or if the mechanised mobile infantry go into battle in helicopters instead of armoured personnel carriers.
My message is simple—back success. Cap badges and traditions, coupled with local community support, will be even more important in the future. If we keep Scotland's regiments, we shall keep Britain's ability to respond to unplanned-for military needs. My hon. Friend the Minister has a good Scottish name and it will not be lost on him that the very existence of the unique Scottish regiments will contribute greatly to maintaining the Union. That Union is constantly under threat from narrow nationalist and socialist nationalist political activists—some in this House. For that reason alone, we should not abandon the regiments, and we should have no truck with the conventional thinking that claims that we no longer need the regiments in a modern professional Army.
I cannot envisage a British Army without the highland and lowland regiments. I cannot imagine circumstances when there would be no Black Watch, Gordons, Royal Scots, Argylls or King's Own Scottish Borderers—the list


of regiments is endless. Their absence would be unthinkable, as it would mean no Union, no Britain, no future for us from north of the border in the House.
The Royal Air Force bases in Scotland made a great contribution to the Gulf air force. Leuchars, Lossiemouth and Kinloss all made their respective contributions with the Tornado, Jaguar, Nimrod and Buccaneer. The various helicopter and RAF regiment units also played a distinguished part in the Gulf war and less well-known bases contributed specialist contingents to the Gulf.
I trust that the lessons of the success of all three versions of the Tornado aircraft will not be lost on the Government. Although all the aircraft and crews made their own unique contributions, the Tornado made a particular one. Aerial supremacy was achieved first by the low-level sorties of the GR1. That supremacy was maintained by a mix of low and medium-level attacks against airfields and radar sites.
The Tornado crews vindicated the need for low-level practice missions throughout Scotland's glens. Many such exercises take place in glens in my constituency, but my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that I have never criticised the need for low flying.
We owe a massive debt to the RAF air crews. I remind my hon. Friend that RAF pilots who are able to execute battle sorties cannot be produced at the drop of a hat. It is important to remember that a pool of experienced, combat-capable pilots and air crews are essential for more than just low-level flying.
In that respect, search-and-rescue crews must also be available and capable of operating behind enemy lines. Privatised search and rescue crews would not and could not be available for such tasks. There may be short-term financial arguments in favour of such privatisation, but there are even more compelling strategic reasons for maintaining an RAF and Royal Navy search-and-rescue capability. Is it not about time that the Wessex flight at Leuchars was re-equipped with the all-weather Sea Kings?
I should also mention the contribution made by the royal naval helicopter workshop in my constituency. The Almondbank workshop may not be well known outside the Royal Navy or Perthshire, but it has a work force of highly skilled and highly motivated people who made an important contribution to Royal Navy helicopter serviceability and availability.
I should also mention the Royal Marine base at Cawdor. The home of 45 Royal Marine Commando is also an important base in Tayside, and the people of Angus welcome the continuing existence of the base.
My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear me speak next of Rosyth naval base. The leaks about the future of that base were at best disturbing and at worst a kick in the teeth for the crews of the minehunter flotilla that performed so magnificently in the Gulf. It is no secret that the Rosyth mine-hunters were the only effective mine-hunters in the Gulf. Without them, the United Nations coalition naval force would not have been able to operate in the northern Gulf, and that would have had profound consequences on the conduct of the campaign.
I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence will accept that we in Scotland do not believe that it is sensible—militarily, politically or economically—to contemplate closing the base. Instead,

Ministers should be arguing the strategic importance of location, the economic importance to central Scotland and the political contribution to maintaining the union through the continuing operation of the base.
I understand that different studies have shown that savings can be made simply by a reallocation of responsibilities and a reduction in staffing levels, leading to as big a saving as would be achieved by putting the base into care and maintenance. During this short debate, I do not have the time to deal in depth with the huge pile of facts which show that the Government would be unwise to contemplate closing Rosyth.
This is an argument not between the Labour and Scottish National party Members of Parliament and a Tory Government, but between the political logic of recognising the contribution made by the Scots to the maintenance of the union through Scotland's regiments and military bases. It is politically unwise to ask the Scots, who represent 9 per cent. of the population, to accept the presence of nuclear-capable submarines in the Clyde and the Forth and also to accept the loss of regiments and bases, when their contribution both in personnel and bases has always been well in excess of the 9 per cent. That fact was recognised by the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Scotland.
Let me make my position crystal clear. I accept that there must be change, that modern, smart weapons are expensive, that we may require smaller, more technically capable armed forces, and that highly complex weapons platforms, be they ships, tanks or aircraft—fixed wing or rotary wing—will probably call for a radical change of procurement policy and maintenance. This in turn will call for greater specialisation, both in bases and the rationalisation of suppliers. In many instances, there will be no opportunity to obtain competitive tenders and Rosyth, for example, could become a minehunter and fishery protection specialist base with another base, say, specialising in aircraft carriers and another in nuclear submarines.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will see that I expect them to reject the original "Options For Change" and instead to argue for a military capability based on recent. real, hot war experience—not on political or military theory, but on the realities and logistics of moving, deploying, supplying and, in the end, of fighting a war with smart weapons and the latest technology. Scotland has a contribution to make. We want to make that contribution both in the regular forces and in the territorial reserves and the auxiliary forces. At a later date, I hope to be able to enlarge on that. We shall fight to retain our regiments and bases. There are no soft options, and the Scottish Conservative party, of which I am a vice-chairman, is determined to maintain the unique Scottish contribution to the armed forces, because we recognise its value to the Union and to Scotland's economy.

Sir Hector Monro: I warmly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has said. It is an interesting coincidence that, in the 1960s, I initiated an Adjournment debate with a view to saving the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. We won that battle, and I hope that we are setting out to ensure that the remaining Scottish regiments retain their full


position. My family has a long relationship with the highland regiments—a relationship stretching over many generations. Tonight, I speak for all the Scottish regiments, including the King's Own Scottish Borderers —my constituency regiment.
When the "Options for Change" were announced, I urged caution. Later, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to pause while the international situation was so involved and so uncertain. It seemed to be quite the wrong time to proceed with a major reorganisation of our services. Certainly, we want to see some peace dividend, but we must proceed carefully. I think that all Members of Parliament want to have some influence on the "Options for Change". We know that work is going on apace, and we are very concerned about it. Positions are being taken up, and before we know what is happening, announcements will be made and the machinery will swing into motion.
We have seven battalions in Scotland, plus, of course, the Scots Guards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said, they are the best recruited in the Army. The Scottish regiments have a particular family tradition. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will recall the sad event at Brize Norton on Friday to honour the three young Jocks brought home from the Gulf—three soldiers who had very close family connections with the Queen's Own Highlanders, one of the most distinguished regiments.
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the training situation in Scotland. We have only Glen Corse. If we lose it, we shall be left with Ouston, near Newcastle. It is very important that Scottish recruits should be able to go to a training depot in Scotland.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North said about Royal Air Force and Royal Navy facilities in Scotland—with particular emphasis on Rosyth. We often hear that 15 to 20 battalions may have to go. Is it to be a question of equal misery, or are certain regiments to be chosen, and the situation to be worked out on the basis of merit and recruiting standards? We could probably get rid of 15 battalions without losing a cap badge. Sadly, that may mean losing some of the Gurkhas and the second battalion of the Guards Brigade. In that situation, we should not be far from achieving the reduction that seems to be required.
But it would be a sad reward for magnificent service in the Gulf if our soldiers were to come home and find that some of their regiments were to be disbanded or amalgamated. There would be serious political and military consequences. We should not underestimate the effect in Scotland of a drastic reduction. It would have a serious impact on morale and on the effectiveness of our services. I ask my hon. Friend to proceed with the greatest caution and the maximum consultation.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on securing this debate and on raising this issue. I welcome the opportunity to reassert the continuing importance of Scotland to the operational effectiveness and support of the armed forces. The Scottish people have a long association with our armed forces—a tradition of which they have every right to be proud. I should like first to outline the range of defence activities

undertaken by the three services in Scotland. I shall then, insofar as it is possible at this stage of our work on "Options for Change", say something about the future, which is, of course, the principal concern in this debate.
Recent events in the Gulf are stilt very much in our minds. Scotland has made a significant contribution to the international community's campaign to liberate Kuwait. I hope that there will be time, later in my speech, to describe something of the scale, breadth and quality of the effort devoted by service and civilian personnel both to meeting operational emergencies such as the Gulf conflict and to discharging a wide range of peacetime tasks.
Starting, as is traditional, with the Royal Navy, at the Clyde submarine base at Faslane, the contribution of the work force towards ensuring that we have been able to maintain at least one of our Polaris submarines on patrol since 1969 cannot be overestimated. It is a task that it will continue to fulfil when Trident replaces Polaris in the mid-1990s. The work force also provides invaluable support to a number of nuclear and conventionally powered submarines which operate from the Clyde base. The building work that has been going on at both Coulport and Faslane comprises one of the largest construction projects in western Europe, which must have brought inestimable benefit to that part of Scotland.
On the east coast, Rosyth naval base currently serves as the home port for a squadron of destroyers as well as for most of the Navy's minor war vessel flotilla, which carry out a myriad tasks, including mine counter-measures and fisheries protection.
Aside from the two naval bases and the royal dockyard at Rosyth, Scotland also supports the Navy by providing bases for the Marines and the Reserves, armaments, stores and fuel depots, training and research establishments and the naval air station at HMS Gannet. Scotland therefore makes a full and varied contribution to all aspects of naval operations.
As for the Army, Scottish regiments are among the oldest in the United Kingdom. Two good examples of the strength and length of this tradition are the Scots Guards, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) referred, which can trace its history back to 1642, and the Royal Scots, the First of Foot, originally raised in 1633, which is the senior British infantry regiment. Scottish regiments have distinguished themselves in battle time and again for over 300 years, from Waterloo and the Crimea—where the Sutherland Highlanders formed the thin red line—to the major campaigns of both world wars.
All Scottish regiments have elements on operational tours at the moment. Indeed, 72 per cent. of the Scottish divisions' manpower is currently on operations. For example, the 1st Battalion the Gordon Highlanders returned from Ulster last December and is at present the spearhead battalion, which means that it is on reduced notice for worldwide deployment. Both the 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers and the 1st Battalion the Queen's Own Highlanders are on their second operational tour in Ulster in under 12 months.
The Royal Air Force is strongly represented in Scotland, with four main bases. It was no surprise to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North macle reference to that. With its two squadrons of Tornado F3 aircraft, RAF Leuchars has long played an important role in the air defence of the United Kingdom. Since the 1970s, RAF Kinloss has been home to three squadrons of


Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, carrying out antisubmarine and anti-surface shipping roles. RAF Lossiemouth has two squadrons of Buccaneer maritime strike attack aircraft and the Shackleton airborne early warning squadron. Lastly, RAF Buchan, in conjunction with the facilities at Benbecula and Saxa Vord, provides ground-based air defence radar coverage for Scotland and the area to the north of the United Kingdom mainland.
As for the future, I am of course aware of the strength of feeling attaching to the options for change work announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last July. I recall that when it was necessary in 1968 to announce a reorganisation of the structure of the Army, the reaction of Scottish Members showed clearly that Scotland is fiercely jealous of its regiments, and rightly so. I assure the House that Scottish regiments will get the same fairness and impartiality of treatment that will be given to all units in the British Army when we plan for change.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House during the Gulf debate on 21 January, we are continuing to study the broad proposals for change with our allies. In view of the collapse of communism in eastern Europe and the end of the cold war, it remains our intention to move towards the new force structures by the mid-1990s. However, we are not yet in a position to take final decisions on the size and shape of the armed forces. I wish to make it clear that, contrary to recent speculation in the press and elsewhere, no decisions have yet been taken regarding Scottish regiments, or indeed any other regiments.
Of course, we are still examining the scope for rationalisation, especially in the support area—for example, a study is under way into the possible closure of Rosyth naval base, but I must emphasise that here again no decision has been taken. The whole range of fleet support activities is being examined as part of the restructuring of the Royal Navy under "Options for Change". There should be no doubt that we need to achieve substantial savings in support costs if we are to sustain appropriate force levels. The present round of studies should be completed shortly, and their recommen-dations will obviously need to be considered carefully before any decision is made.
Initial work showed that the closure of Rosyth naval base might contribute significantly to the support savings for which we are looking under options. Further work into the implications of closure was therefore Commissioned to provide some of the evidence needed for an informed decision. In reaching a decision, we shall wish to consider

all relevant factors, including the post-options force levels, the MOD's financial position, strategic and operational requirements and the implications for employment, the local economy and naval and civilian personnel.
Final decisions on options for change will depend on many factors, including lessons learned in the Gulf, discussions with our NATO allies and developments in our relationship with the Soviet Union. I am sure that the House will understand that we need to draw the correct lessons from the Gulf conflict, assess the risks remaining elsewhere in the world and plan carefully for cautious and measured change.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the significant contribution which Scotland has made to the successful participation by our forces in the international community's campaign to liberate Kuwait.
The five Royal Navy mine counter-measures vessels, HMS Hurworth, Cattistock, Atherstone, Dulverton and Ledbury, which have played a leading role in countering the mining threat to allied ships in the northern Gulf, are all based at Rosyth. Their success is in no small part due to those at the base who helped in preparing the ships for this difficult and dangerous task in a very short time. The naval supply and transport office at Rosyth, the armament depots at Crombie and Beith and the NATO armaments depot at Glen Douglas have all given superb support to forces in the Gulf through the efficient provision of armaments, food, fuel and general naval stores.
Scottish regiments were well represented in the Gulf, although I have seen some rather exaggerated estimates in early-day motions and in the press. They provided Challenger tanks and M109 guns for 7th Armoured Brigade, Warrior armoured infantry fighting vehicles for 4th Brigade and manpower for special tasks such as casualty evacuation, handling of prisoners of war and reinforcement of field hospitals. We estimate that about 9 per cent. of the total of Regular Army soldiers who served in the Gulf were from Scottish regiments. Of course, not everyone serving in a Scottish regiment is necessarily Scottish, and the figure of 9 per cent. does not take account of the fact that many other personnel of Scottish origin will also have served in the Gulf in units with no specific ties to Scotland such as the Royal Engineers or the Royal Corps of Transport.
I emphasise that the strong representation from Scotland was purely coincidental——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.